On internal or open competitions, the notice of competition is the ‘bible’. Why? Due to its binding nature. The notice of competition (NoC) and its annexes operate as a binding legal framework for the procedure. You should therefore read it before anything else. You should even consider that each ‘word’ and ‘comma’ counts!
This article is not about the lack of competitions or its badly planification, wrongdoings, or about technical difficulties you may face when you are applying to internal or open competitions.
This article is a brief guide on procedures, rights and duties regarding complaints, queries, and legal remedies at your disposal when something goes wrong. Obviously, you should primarily focus on the content and not in the procedures. You should focus on the tests and not on complaints, queries and legal remedies, but it is quite important to master them when time comes.
If you are an experienced colleague/applicant you may find this article short of information or redundant, but if you are applying a competition for the first time, you might consider the information displayed further below useful.
Taking as an example an internal competition recently closed (i.e. application deadline is over) as the 2026 AD7 internal competition, the relevant part of the notice of competition (NoC) is section 5 at Annex IV (general information). It matters because you must distinguish between:
- “queries and complaint related to cognitive reasoning assessment”;
- “technical and organisational issues”,
- “technical issues during the ‘Computer-based multiple-choice question (MCQ) on EU knowledge and written tests”;
- “compliant about questions of the MCQ on EU knowledge”
- “requests for review”
- “complaints under Article 90(2) of the staff regulations”
- “judicial appeals”, and
- “complaint to the European Ombudsman”.
Also, despite not included in section 5, the governance of the access to documents/information permitted under the competition is still relevant. To this end, a relevant section is section 4.3. Let us consider a practical situation: you have been excluded from the competition because you have not reached a given pass score. You enjoy two rights, the right of access to certain information concerning you directly and individually, and the right to request a review of the Selection Board decision excluding you from the competition based on your results. The former is granted to comply with the obligation to state reasons, in order to allow for an appeal against a decision negatively affecting you. The second is granted to allow an amendment of a decision previously issued by the Selection Board in case of a manifest error of its initial assessment. The request for review must be lodged in 5 working days starting on (and including) the day after you receive the decision of the Selection Board. However, if you plan to use both, first requesting access to information, and after making the request for review, you can do it, but you should not wait for the answer to the access to information requested because your request for information will not be processed within the 5 working days you have to lodge a request for review! Also, be aware that:
- secrecy of the Selection Board proceedings is the rule! (Article 6, Annex III to the Staff Regulations)
- due to secrecy, views adopted by members of Selection Board regarding the individual or comparative assessments of candidates cannot be disclosed.
- Regulation No 1049/2001 on public access to documents may not confer on candidates’ rights that are broader than those that are specific to internal competitions.
In both cases, the requests must be done via the Single Candidate Portal. Also note: you have 5 working days to lodge a request for review, but you do not find in the NoC any deadline for a reply to your request for review. It can take days, weeks or months for the Selection Board to decide on your request. It may even happen after the reserve list has been published. Sure, candidates will not be deprived of proceeding to the next stage of the competition, if his/her request for review is successful.
Despite the assurance above, Generation 2004 is regularly pleading both to DG HR (competent for internal competitions) and to EPSO (responsible for open competitions) to correct this anomaly by adding to the NoC’s a response time-limit to the Selection Board(s) reply.
In principle, no request for review is possible in relation to computer-based multiple-choice question (MCQ test) on EU knowledge result. This is the case for the 2026 AD7 competition.
If you lodge a request for review against a Selection Board decision, it is not assured that you will get positive feedback. The difficulty derives from the fact that the Selection Board (s) enjoys a wide margin of discretion in making value judgements about candidates’ performance, educational qualifications, and professional experience. The Union courts will not re-mark written tests. Review is limited to checking whether evaluation criteria were respected and/or there was a manifest error (case T-72/01 Pyres v Commission).
Consequently, the rule is that the evaluation of candidates is primarily of the Selection Board. The Appointing Authority (Director-General HR or Director of EPSO) cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the Selection Board (confirmed by EU settled case-law – case 44/71 Marcato v Commission and regularly reiterated since there).
Furthermore, your personal convictions and feelings on your performance in a test or on your educational qualifications and/or professional experience do not count! If you ground your request for review on such elements, the Selection Board will reject them!
Additionally, note that a request for a review is not an administrative complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. The former precedes the latter. If you lodge a request for review of a decision of the Selection Board, you must wait for the Selection Board decision before lodging an Article 90(2) complaint, even if the reply to your request for review takes weeks or months!
An Article 90(2) complaint is a legal remedy established by the Staff Regulations. You should use it if the decision from DG HR or EPSO is final, and it is adversely affecting your rights.
The purpose of the complaint is to verify if the legal framework and the procedural rules of the competition have been respected. If you have lodged a request for review against a decision excluding you from the competition, and the Selection Board upholds the initial decision, you may decide to lodge an Article 90(2) (administrative) complaint against such decision. The administrative complaint is a prior step to a judicial appeal (Article 270 TFEU) before the Union courts (case T-100/04 Giannini v Commission). For a complaint, you have a 3-month deadline which starts to run from the date of the notification from the Selection Board. It is not compulsory to lodge the complaint via the Single Candidate Portal you must lodge it directly by e-mail to the functional mailbox HR MAIL F6 (HR-MAIL-F6@ec.europa.eu). This is valid for the 2026 AD7 competition, but it was not the case in past competitions and may differ from one competition to another (better check each NoC!).
Article 90(2) complaint does not mean that your case will be overturn by the Appointing Authority (AA). In fact, the AA cannot overturn a value judgment made by the Selection Board. The AA has no power to change the substance of the Selection Board’s decision.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistently held that the wide discretion enjoyed by Selection Board is not subject to review by the Court unless the rules which govern their proceedings have clearly been infringed.
Union courts annul Selection Board decisions where procedural irregularities influence the result. Examples: incorrect evaluation process, breach of competition rules or improper composition of the Selection Board (case T-165/03 Vonier v Commission). Further to a scrutiny of EU settled case-law, we conclude that most successful actions against DG HR/EPSO decisions rely on:
- breach of the notice of competition
- eligibility misinterpretation
- procedural irregularities
- unequal treatment
Challenges to exam marking almost never succeed because of the Selection Board discretion!
Last but not least:
Having in mind, specifically, the 2026 AD7 competition, please do not confuse Article 90(2) complaint with complaints about questions of the MCQ test on EU knowledge. They serve different purposes, and they have different timelines. The latter is only to be used when you have justified reasons to believe that an error in one or more of the questions of the MCQ affected your ability to answer the question(s), you may ask for the question(s) to be neutralised. If it is the case, you must submit such complaint within 3 calendar days counting from (and including) the day following the test in question. You must do it via the Single Candidate Portal only!
The 2026 AD7 internal competition is the first competition using a cognitive reasoning assessment. The cognitive reasoning assessment replaces the talent screener. Any queries and complaints regarding the cognitive assessment shall be addressed to the external company. You may inform the secretariat of the competition of the queries you addressed to the external company. You are not obliged to do so, but if you do it, this will be considered as a point of information, but no follow-up will be ensured by the secretariat.
Last (possible) step in your journey on competitions litigation is either a judicial appeal or a complaint to the European Ombudsman.
If you decide to lodge an appeal before the General Court (after rejection, express or implied, of your Article 90(2) complaint), you enjoy a 3-month and 10 days deadline to make it, but you need to hire a specialised lawyer for doing so. It costs money. If you cannot afford it (subject to proof of lack of revenues), you can apply for legal aid (by using a Legal Aid Form).
The Union courts path requires that the case directly and individually concerns the legal situation of the person bringing the case. “Direct and individual concern” has a very specific meaning in EU law. This means that although the act does not name the person directly, it affects the legal situation of that person because of certain characteristics that distinguish them from all other people. It has a short and strict deadline to be lodged, i.e. three months and 10 days counting from the date of a notification (Decision) from the AA concerning, for instance, your exclusion from the competition – Article 90(3) of the SR.
Please note, as candidate you can submit a judicial appeal, even if you had not previously filed a request for review or lodged a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (Annex IV, point 5.6 of the Notice of competition, p. 22).
The complaint to the Ombudsman) is free of costs and requires a submission via the form available here). It should concern a case of maladministration of the Commission (or EPSO) during a given competition. The deadline for lodging it is wider than a judicial appeal because you enjoy a two-year deadline to do so. The period starts to count as from the date when you as the affected person became aware of the facts. Please remember, a complaint lodged with the Ombudsman must be preceded by the appropriate administrative approaches (i.e. you need first to lodge either a request for review or an Article 90(2) complaint within the Commission or within other institution, body, or agency). Second, and final remark, a complaint to the European Ombudsman does not suspend your deadlines for lodging an administrative procedure (query, request for review or Article 90(2) complaint) or a judicial appeal.
As always, we would love to hear from you. Please do not hesitate to get in touch with us or leave a comment below.
If you appreciate our work, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004
