The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the own-initiative report drawn up by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (EPP, DE) on implementation of Article 2 of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities: the recruitment policy of the Institutions and organs of the EU. The principal objective of the report is to look at the implementation of Article 2 of the Staff Regulations in the context of the recruitment of officials and other servants of the EU institutions and organs. That Article provides in particular that one or more institutions may entrust to any one of them or to an inter-institutional body the exercise of some or all of the powers conferred on the Appointing Authority, other than decisions relating to appointments, promotions or transfers of officials. By Decision 2002/620/EC, the selection of officials and other servants was entrusted to European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) pursuant to Article 2 of the Staff Regulation. It is therefore that aspect of recruitment policy, which is managed by EPSO as a competence delegated to it by the institutions in implementing the Staff Regulations, which is at the heart of the report.

The committee congratulates the European Personnel Selection Office (‘EPSO’), on its continuing efforts to modernise the selection procedures but points out at the same time that on the external, i.e. interinstitutional, level EPSO has to comply with all the conditions imposed by the Staff Regulations on the institutions as appointing authorities and, at the same time, with the implementing acts concerning EPSO. It notes that Decision 2002/621/EC setting up EPSO and the Agreement between the Secretaries-General of the institutions setting out the common principles for a shared selection and recruitment policy and the principles for managing reserve lists ( ‘the Agreement’), should have been reviewed three years after the creation of EPSO. This has not been done, nor has the Agreement itself been published in the Official Journal, which calls into question the transparency of the selection and recruitment procedures. The committee requests publication of the Agreement in the Official Journal.

Members refer to the EPSO Development Programme ‘Roadmap for Implementation’ adopted by the Management Board of EPSO on 11 September 2008 (‘the EDP’). They note that in certain respects the EDP is not in conformity with the common principles for a shared selection and recruitment policy and the principles for managing reserve lists set out in the Agreement, in particular with respect to selection boards, the content of competitions and the use of reserve lists. Those common principles are, however, the basis on which the Management Board, in collaboration with the Director of EPSO, has to set up and develop a shared selection system. Accordingly, Members call on Parliament’s Secretary-General and the other institutions which founded EPSO to initiate an urgent and constructive review of Decision 2002/621/EC and the Agreement pursuant to the relevant provisions of those acts. This review should focus on interinstitutional aspects of EPSO and selection policy and procedures and take the EDP into account.

The committee considers that first and foremost EPSO must respect the legal requirements imposed by the Staff Regulations and the relevant implementing acts with respect to the organisation and conduct of competitions and ensuring that the reserve lists produced enable the institutions to recruit in compliance with Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. Members note that the recruitment needs of individual institutions vary, and they stress that the EDP must better address the issue of linguistic and geographical balance in the selection process so as to allow the institutions to ensure that the administration is both multilingual and multicultural. Parliament’s commitment to common selection procedures conducted by EPSO is dependent on fulfilment of Parliament’s specific needs as a fully multilingual institution. Accordingly, Members call on EPSO to carry out an urgent in-depth appraisal so as to identify the reasons for the geographical and linguistic imbalances observed and possible remedies, and to communicate its findings to the institutions.

The committee goes on to deplore the lack of a permanent presence within EPSO structures, in particular the hierarchy, of staff from Parliament: such a presence would provide EPSO with the necessary understanding, awareness and expertise about the specificities of Parliament as an institution, give it the necessary sensitivity to Parliament’s particular needs and ensure proper balance in all the steps of planning and implementation of the selection procedures. It also recalls in this context Article 7(4) of Decision 2002/621/EC, which requires that officials of all Community institutions be informed of posts vacant within EPSO as soon as the appointing authority decides to fill them.

With regard to staff quality, the committee considers that one of the essential elements of the job description of EU staff should be to contribute positively to the European project. It regrets that the EDP does not dwell on the issues of transparency and equality of candidates that have been addressed on a number of occasions by the Ombudsman and are subject to pending judicial review.

Moving on to selection boards, the committee refers to EPSO’s plan to professionalise Selection Boards proposing as one of its elements that 27 officials are seconded to EPSO on a full time basis for between 2 and 4 years in accordance with the conditions and procedures to be set out in conjunction with the institutions and the Staff Committees. The committee objects to the professionalisation of selection boards through the secondment of officials on a full-time basis to EPSO, on the grounds that it is contrary to the Staff Regulations and therefore illegal, affords no guarantees of independence and objectivity and is neither an effective nor an efficient option. It considers instead that it is vital to maintain the input to the selection process of selection boards composed of officials in active service who are sensitive to and keenly aware of the actual needs of their institutions and that this is the best way of guaranteeing the independence, impartiality and integrity of recruitment. The committee undertakes to identify and introduce as a matter of urgency solutions which will make for better availability of members of selection boards and enable them to perform their duties as members of those boards in an effective way, and requests the other institutions to join it in this endeavour.

Members further call on EPSO to do the following:

·        present alternative options for optimising the selection board aspect of the selection procedure and to assess their impact in line with possible guidelines to be contained in the reviewed Agreement;

·        together with the institutions, to reflect on alternative ways of strengthening selection boards’ ability successfully to perform their tasks, such as permanent assistance by professional assessors, assessment centres, the creation of a database of selection board members with the experience and willingness to perform this task, and continuous training.

Lastly, the committee is concerned by the Court of Auditors’ findings about the determination of costs of competitions and urges EPSO to implement the Court’s recommendations in this respect.

The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the own-initiative report drawn up by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (EPP, DE) on implementation of Article 2 of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities: the recruitment policy of the Institutions and organs of the EU. The principal objective of the report is to look at the implementation of Article 2 of the Staff Regulations in the context of the recruitment of officials and other servants of the EU institutions and organs. That Article provides in particular that one or more institutions may entrust to any one of them or to an inter-institutional body the exercise of some or all of the powers conferred on the Appointing Authority, other than decisions relating to appointments, promotions or transfers of officials. By Decision 2002/620/EC, the selection of officials and other servants was entrusted to European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) pursuant to Article 2 of the Staff Regulation. It is therefore that aspect of recruitment policy, which is managed by EPSO as a competence delegated to it by the institutions in implementing the Staff Regulations, which is at the heart of the report.

The committee congratulates the European Personnel Selection Office (‘EPSO’), on its continuing efforts to modernise the selection procedures but points out at the same time that on the external, i.e. interinstitutional, level EPSO has to comply with all the conditions imposed by the Staff Regulations on the institutions as appointing authorities and, at the same time, with the implementing acts concerning EPSO. It notes that Decision 2002/621/EC setting up EPSO and the Agreement between the Secretaries-General of the institutions setting out the common principles for a shared selection and recruitment policy and the principles for managing reserve lists ( ‘the Agreement’), should have been reviewed three years after the creation of EPSO. This has not been done, nor has the Agreement itself been published in the Official Journal, which calls into question the transparency of the selection and recruitment procedures. The committee requests publication of the Agreement in the Official Journal.

Members refer to the EPSO Development Programme ‘Roadmap for Implementation’ adopted by the Management Board of EPSO on 11 September 2008 (‘the EDP’). They note that in certain respects the EDP is not in conformity with the common principles for a shared selection and recruitment policy and the principles for managing reserve lists set out in the Agreement, in particular with respect to selection boards, the content of competitions and the use of reserve lists. Those common principles are, however, the basis on which the Management Board, in collaboration with the Director of EPSO, has to set up and develop a shared selection system. Accordingly, Members call on Parliament’s Secretary-General and the other institutions which founded EPSO to initiate an urgent and constructive review of Decision 2002/621/EC and the Agreement pursuant to the relevant provisions of those acts. This review should focus on interinstitutional aspects of EPSO and selection policy and procedures and take the EDP into account.

The committee considers that first and foremost EPSO must respect the legal requirements imposed by the Staff Regulations and the relevant implementing acts with respect to the organisation and conduct of competitions and ensuring that the reserve lists produced enable the institutions to recruit in compliance with Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. Members note that the recruitment needs of individual institutions vary, and they stress that the EDP must better address the issue of linguistic and geographical balance in the selection process so as to allow the institutions to ensure that the administration is both multilingual and multicultural. Parliament’s commitment to common selection procedures conducted by EPSO is dependent on fulfilment of Parliament’s specific needs as a fully multilingual institution. Accordingly, Members call on EPSO to carry out an urgent in-depth appraisal so as to identify the reasons for the geographical and linguistic imbalances observed and possible remedies, and to communicate its findings to the institutions.

The committee goes on to deplore the lack of a permanent presence within EPSO structures, in particular the hierarchy, of staff from Parliament: such a presence would provide EPSO with the necessary understanding, awareness and expertise about the specificities of Parliament as an institution, give it the necessary sensitivity to Parliament’s particular needs and ensure proper balance in all the steps of planning and implementation of the selection procedures. It also recalls in this context Article 7(4) of Decision 2002/621/EC, which requires that officials of all Community institutions be informed of posts vacant within EPSO as soon as the appointing authority decides to fill them.

With regard to staff quality, the committee considers that one of the essential elements of the job description of EU staff should be to contribute positively to the European project. It regrets that the EDP does not dwell on the issues of transparency and equality of candidates that have been addressed on a number of occasions by the Ombudsman and are subject to pending judicial review.

Moving on to selection boards, the committee refers to EPSO’s plan to professionalise Selection Boards proposing as one of its elements that 27 officials are seconded to EPSO on a full time basis for between 2 and 4 years in accordance with the conditions and procedures to be set out in conjunction with the institutions and the Staff Committees. The committee objects to the professionalisation of selection boards through the secondment of officials on a full-time basis to EPSO, on the grounds that it is contrary to the Staff Regulations and therefore illegal, affords no guarantees of independence and objectivity and is neither an effective nor an efficient option. It considers instead that it is vital to maintain the input to the selection process of selection boards composed of officials in active service who are sensitive to and keenly aware of the actual needs of their institutions and that this is the best way of guaranteeing the independence, impartiality and integrity of recruitment. The committee undertakes to identify and introduce as a matter of urgency solutions which will make for better availability of members of selection boards and enable them to perform their duties as members of those boards in an effective way, and requests the other institutions to join it in this endeavour.

Members further call on EPSO to do the following:

·        present alternative options for optimising the selection board aspect of the selection procedure and to assess their impact in line with possible guidelines to be contained in the reviewed Agreement;

·        together with the institutions, to reflect on alternative ways of strengthening selection boards’ ability successfully to perform their tasks, such as permanent assistance by professional assessors, assessment centres, the creation of a database of selection board members with the experience and willingness to perform this task, and continuous training.

Lastly, the committee is concerned by the Court of Auditors’ findings about the determination of costs of competitions and urges EPSO to implement the Court’s recommendations in this respect.

The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the own-initiative report drawn up by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (EPP, DE) on implementation of Article 2 of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities: the recruitment policy of the Institutions and organs of the EU. The principal objective of the report is to look at the implementation of Article 2 of the Staff Regulations in the context of the recruitment of officials and other servants of the EU institutions and organs. That Article provides in particular that one or more institutions may entrust to any one of them or to an inter-institutional body the exercise of some or all of the powers conferred on the Appointing Authority, other than decisions relating to appointments, promotions or transfers of officials. By Decision 2002/620/EC, the selection of officials and other servants was entrusted to European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) pursuant to Article 2 of the Staff Regulation. It is therefore that aspect of recruitment policy, which is managed by EPSO as a competence delegated to it by the institutions in implementing the Staff Regulations, which is at the heart of the report.

The committee congratulates the European Personnel Selection Office ('EPSO'), on its continuing efforts to modernise the selection procedures but points out at the same time that on the external, i.e. interinstitutional, level EPSO has to comply with all the conditions imposed by the Staff Regulations on the institutions as appointing authorities and, at the same time, with the implementing acts concerning EPSO. It notes that Decision 2002/621/EC setting up EPSO and the Agreement between the Secretaries-General of the institutions setting out the common principles for a shared selection and recruitment policy and the principles for managing reserve lists ( 'the Agreement'), should have been reviewed three years after the creation of EPSO. This has not been done, nor has the Agreement itself been published in the Official Journal, which calls into question the transparency of the selection and recruitment procedures. The committee requests publication of the Agreement in the Official Journal.

Members refer to the EPSO Development Programme 'Roadmap for Implementation' adopted by the Management Board of EPSO on 11 September 2008 ('the EDP'). They note that in certain respects the EDP is not in conformity with the common principles for a shared selection and recruitment policy and the principles for managing reserve lists set out in the Agreement, in particular with respect to selection boards, the content of competitions and the use of reserve lists. Those common principles are, however, the basis on which the Management Board, in collaboration with the Director of EPSO, has to set up and develop a shared selection system. Accordingly, Members call on Parliament's Secretary-General and the other institutions which founded EPSO to initiate an urgent and constructive review of Decision 2002/621/EC and the Agreement pursuant to the relevant provisions of those acts. This review should focus on interinstitutional aspects of EPSO and selection policy and procedures and take the EDP into account.

The committee considers that first and foremost EPSO must respect the legal requirements imposed by the Staff Regulations and the relevant implementing acts with respect to the organisation and conduct of competitions and ensuring that the reserve lists produced enable the institutions to recruit in compliance with Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. Members note that the recruitment needs of individual institutions vary, and they stress that the EDP must better address the issue of linguistic and geographical balance in the selection process so as to allow the institutions to ensure that the administration is both multilingual and multicultural. Parliament's commitment to common selection procedures conducted by EPSO is dependent on fulfilment of Parliament's specific needs as a fully multilingual institution. Accordingly, Members call on EPSO to carry out an urgent in-depth appraisal so as to identify the reasons for the geographical and linguistic imbalances observed and possible remedies, and to communicate its findings to the institutions.

The committee goes on to deplore the lack of a permanent presence within EPSO structures, in particular the hierarchy, of staff from Parliament: such a presence would provide EPSO with the necessary understanding, awareness and expertise about the specificities of Parliament as an institution, give it the necessary sensitivity to Parliament's particular needs and ensure proper balance in all the steps of planning and implementation of the selection procedures. It also recalls in this context Article 7(4) of Decision 2002/621/EC, which requires that officials of all Community institutions be informed of posts vacant within EPSO as soon as the appointing authority decides to fill them.

With regard to staff quality, the committee considers that one of the essential elements of the job description of EU staff should be to contribute positively to the European project. It regrets that the EDP does not dwell on the issues of transparency and equality of candidates that have been addressed on a number of occasions by the Ombudsman and are subject to pending judicial review.

Moving on to selection boards, the committee refers to EPSO's plan to professionalise Selection Boards proposing as one of its elements that 27 officials are seconded to EPSO on a full time basis for between 2 and 4 years in accordance with the conditions and procedures to be set out in conjunction with the institutions and the Staff Committees. The committee objects to the professionalisation of selection boards through the secondment of officials on a full-time basis to EPSO, on the grounds that it is contrary to the Staff Regulations and therefore illegal, affords no guarantees of independence and objectivity and is neither an effective nor an efficient option. It considers instead that it is vital to maintain the input to the selection process of selection boards composed of officials in active service who are sensitive to and keenly aware of the actual needs of their institutions and that this is the best way of guaranteeing the independence, impartiality and integrity of recruitment. The committee undertakes to identify and introduce as a matter of urgency solutions which will make for better availability of members of selection boards and enable them to perform their duties as members of those boards in an effective way, and requests the other institutions to join it in this endeavour.

Members further call on EPSO to do the following:

·        present alternative options for optimising the selection board aspect of the selection procedure and to assess their impact in line with possible guidelines to be contained in the reviewed Agreement;

·        together with the institutions, to reflect on alternative ways of strengthening selection boards' ability successfully to perform their tasks, such as permanent assistance by professional assessors, assessment centres, the creation of a database of selection board members with the experience and willingness to perform this task, and continuous training.

Lastly, the committee is concerned by the Court of Auditors' findings about the determination of costs of competitions and urges EPSO to implement the Court's recommendations in this respect.