Welcome to the real world Professor... Do you not realise that there are many dozens of candidates with skills at least equivalent if not better than yours worldwide, in a legal field that has become so popular, who opt for prestigious employment in the EU?
Sorry to disappoint you, but it seems that there simply were candidates who had (the list is indicative from just a look at the competition notice): a) more than 8 years of relevant law firm experience b) "Professional experience in legislative processes in the field of EU law or competition law" (which you don't have) c) "Professional experience... in a court or in a national or an international public authority" (which you don't have). d) More than 5 academic articles on the topic.
Of course, you can file a complaint against the EPSO results. They will simply decline any review of their decisions. 100%. They might give you a breakdown of your scoring, although this is also highly unlikely. Their discretionary powers are absolute. No Court or Ombudsman will ever change your scoring unless you succesfully invoke procedural irregularities (Pachtitis style). Experience is speaking here. So, just forget about it and go on with your life.
After all, it puzzles me why a professor with essentially 2 extremely prestigious jobs would want to work for the EU, it's funny how the daily grind can make you want a 40-hour and not that well-paid (compared to your current) job.

Leaving your own frustration and irony aside, you should at least THANK me for answering promptly and with accuracy your question! Go and ask anyone you want Mr Valeris and if you tell me that I somewhat misdirected you to NOT file a complaint, I' ll come back here and apologise!

Do you realise that no candidate ever has successfully challenged the scoring, except for some extreme cases? What do you think, you will vent your own frustration here and you will find other people who will rant that they were treated unfairly and then what? Come on! Did you even bother checking the wealth of information available on this forum, the Ombudsman's website and many other places before asking unnecessary questions? EPSO will tell you that it reviewed your file and will confirm its initial marking! They never never revise scores. Go do your own research first and then come back to ask such random questions. Frankly, you should be a little bit ashamed of asking questions like "Have been your scores fair?". I seriously doubt your credentials mister, with such poor thinking. Case closed!

Believe me when I say that I know what I'm talking about...Maybe perhaps I have not only filed a complaint but also (unsuccessfully) appealed to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal? (Didn't spend any money because I drafted everything myself and did extensive research into case law) I would not be of such a strong opinion otherwise.

And yes, I am justifiably frustrated when some prestigious lawyer wants to essentially free ride and get information for free, when who knows what you're charging your clients...I wouldn't be so angry otherwise but I find it very arrogant and narcissistic on your part. ESPECIALLY because you are not, say, an economist but a lawyer! Do you realise that most people who are writing here are 20-somethings who ask random questions about verbal reasoning etc. and are of a totally different level from yours and mine? And you want to get them to give you advice? After all, how do they know how the ones invited to the AC were scored?? This is essentially what you are asking of them.

Of course you should file a complaint. It's not that difficult at this stage. I am just saying, first, how pointless it is, but hey, do it, it's your right, and secondly, how random it is when you are asking questions "have been your results fair?" as if you were some tourist and not an established lawyer.

Of course, you rushed to delete your first post, because you understood how arrogant and stupid it was: a competition lawyer with an experience of many years in an international competition law firm, Visiting Professor (!!!) in 2 (!!!) Universities, multiple articles in competition law journals, complains about his low score and does not understand:
first, that other criteria were also important, perhaps more important (and I pointed them out to you), but you did not spend a couple of minutes to read the Competition Notice and second, that competition law is one of the most popular fields of law in Europe and there are many dozens of people with many years' experience in Independent Competition Authorities, in Ministries of Trade, in the Commission working as temporary agents, etc etc. But of course, the Professor who charges 1,000 euros per hour perhaps, brags about his CV and DEMANDS FREE LEGAL (essentially) advice because he DESERVES it. Ha ha!

PS. I also took part in this competition but was also disqualified because I don't like competition law at all and thus do not have relevant experience. Of course, if I were equally arrogant I would say "heeey, why did they not count this other experience I have in a law firm", "have been your results fair?" (I admire your English in yourt original deleted post) and yadda, yadda, yadda. Now, I don't complain and don't care. In fact, I only participated for the free training in reasoning tests ;-)

I'll just add my 2 cents as someone who was invited to the AC of the Corporate Finance branch of the same competition. Additionally, I was also invited to the AC of an AD7 Economists competition 1.5 years ago, also following a Talent Screener procedure.

In addition to really having a good fit between your background and the TS requirements, it is very much a matter of selling yourself well. This means being very detailed in answering the questions; for instance, I have fully used the 4,000 characters limit in most of my answers. The worst thing is making reference to the resume inserted in the other section of the application ("as mentioned in the resume") and NOT repeating yourself. Moreover, I tried to structure the answers in a format detailing the industries, geographies, types of companies, types of projects, methods used, concepts employed, softwares used etc. In my opinion, this is very important in order to give the assessors the means to grade the depth and breadth of your experience, as well as showing you really know what you're talking about.

Hope this helps!

@mishtone:

Thanks a lot for your very insightful comments! It will definitely help if we apply to competitions with talent screeners in the future. You did your job well and spent a lot of thought on your application and on the EPSO process...(instead of coming here whining because you are a professor or something and EPSO did not treat you fairly, etc). Good luck wih the Assessment centre!

@EPSO Candidate
Well, you may be right in some of your comments but this also confirms your arrogance and dissapointment of your failure in this competition; justifications like "I only participated for training" is just hilarious :-))).
I'm writing my comment as well because I really wanted to thank you for enlighting me on what king of people are heading to european organizations since you could be a colleague of mine in a possible future. Of course this does not a stand a chance any more since not only I was disqualified but I'm not willing to go through this procedure again. Despite what you think about EPSO transparency and fair treatment you cannot deny the following:
1. It is unfair to examine one's CV only if a min. score in irrelevant examined fields is achieved. So how come an other candidate is better than me in the actual job?
2. Since we are not provided with the computerised/automated scores at the time of test, how are you sure about transparency? probably you are fond of such system where you can hide your inabilities behind lucky guesses on the test.
3. Even more, since the EPSO is able to "neutralise" questions without any formal public justification (and therefore amend the final score), what else can I assume but treating some candidates differently than others. I'm not sure if you are a lawyer, but for someone interested in this, there is a legal ground for canceling future EPSO competitions.

I would be definately be ineterested to work for a EU organization only because I would like to reduce working hours and be more with my family; other than that I wouldn't like to be around arrogant people like you that they "think" are better than others for the reasons I described above.
I would not also be so kind to wish you success in the future because this would be against my beliefs of fair treatment. I would only wish what you wish for yourself......To get what you deserve........

Hope we never meet!

@Greg:

I am also lucky not to be a future colleague of an entitled and arrogant person whose only interest in working for the EU, is the 40-hour workweek. Wtf??? Well, this could definitely be the primary reason for the EU's demise: i.e. people wanting a free lunch and an eaaaasy job. LOL. But I forgot, they "know better"!

My friend, it is obvious that you have not spent the least amount of time to do some research on your own concerning EPSO and its procedures. We are not talking about more than a few hours of work...Like MISHTONE did. I am sure he is a busy professional BUT the difference is he did not ask around to free ride and get answers, he did not feel entitled, like you do, he put in the work instead. If you acted like him, you would find answers to all of your questions. ALL of your questions have been answered by the COurt, the Ombudsman...

But first, whoever said that EPSO is the best agency in the world?? Whoever also said that I think that I am better than others?? Of course EPSO has a lot of flaws! Of course it has been (some times) accused of bad procedures. And to refer to myself, I NEVER said that I deserved something which I did not get.

BUT it is one thing to ask a question like "How can I persuade EPSO to disclose the scoring criteria? What If I rely on this or that Ombudsman's decision?I am curious" and ANOTHER to have educated people come here to whine because they think they were treated unfairly and ask silly questions like "Have been your results fair?" "Ahh, yes, neutralised questions! The great EPSO Conspiracy! I will cancel all future EPSO competitions" (Btw, do you even KNOW what neutralised questions are ? Have you ever read the EPSO website?)

"justifications like "I only participated for training" is just hilarious :-)))."

I don't want to get involved in your spirited discussion concerning the other points raised, but just wanted to comment on this.

In fact, many people, while waiting for "their" competition to come round, register to every single EPSO competition going, whether they are qualified or not, simply to be able gather experience of the initial CBT phase in an authentic testing environment. The more you practice verbal, numerical and abstract reasoning, the better at it you will get. And doing the tests at the testing centre, with the correct time limitations and the authentic atmosphere, is especially beneficial.

So, as EPSO (at least so far) has not set any kind of limits on how many competitions one can take part in, why not sign up and use the opportunity to practice? Of course, this works best for those who live within a reasonable distance from a testing centre and thus have no travel expenses, or very low (cost of a bus ticket max.)

@ EPSO Candidate
As I understand you have dedicated your life in the EPSO competition since you say you know so much...
Well guess what...there is life outside, but apparently life does not want to meet you!
I strongly believe you should check yourself out! Especially if your daily job is flying air crafts.....

Hi, all.

It seems that this post or forum is a catch-all discussion on this particular competition and/or the selection or CBT scoring criteria. Unlike some of you, I'm not a professional in studying or preparing myself to become a professional public servant, which I also think should be restricted. In any case, I think that it is really wrong and even not ethical at all to participate in a competition where you don't even have the minimum academic or professional requirements like some of you acknowledge.

Your behaviour has an impact beyond our egocentric lifes. It kicks out good people from the competition with the specific profile of the competition. This makes the competition a bit more arbitrary to select the best 400 candidates or so to proceed with the talent screener and the Assessment Centre phases. This is regretful because it is just not fair and good candidates (who could make it through the rest of the selection process) are lost just because they did not train as much as you did the CBT tests, not because of lack of interest but lack of time as they are not professional Epso concours takers.

If you want to train, instead of signing for a concours you will never succeed because you don't even have the minimum requirements to participate, you can sign up for specific training packages like at Eutraining.eu (great training) instead of getting just an additional extra training session paid by the taxpayer.

I think that such behaviour is even shameful for someone aiming to represent the public interest. Those behaving like this systematically might not really deserve nor should be suitable to work in an EU or public institution.

Some of you may think that I'm resentful because I didn't make it to the Assessment Center. If so, you are wrong since I passed the CBT and the talent screener selection so I'm one of the lucky who are invited to the Assessment Centre. Even if it could be in my personal interest that strong candidates have not made it, I still I think that it's a pity if the global aim is to select the best candidates.

I believe that anyone who signed for a competition without clearly having the minimum profile or requirements should be excluded for future competitions for a certain time. This would stop such regretful behaviour. I think that this would be a reasonable and proportionate measure that shouldn't be challenged successfully before the EU courts.

Have a good one and good luck! (those who deserve it).

Juan, I think there may have been a misunderstanding concerning the way the competitions work, especially the ones with specific profiles.

No "good people" or "strong candidates" are ever kicked out of the competition just because someone who is not qualified takes part in the competition as well. This simply would not happen.

Let's take Competition Law as an example.

The maximum number of points one can obtain in the three CBT is 40.

The number of candidates with Competition Law as their field was 1175. As this number exceeded the threshold set by the Director of EPSO, prior admission tests were organized.

After the computer based tests, compliance with the general and specific conditions was checked in descending order of the marks obtained, until the number of candidates who passed the admission tests with the highest marks, AND satisfied the eligibility conditions, reached the threshold set by the Director of EPSO.

Now, let's assume that 50 candidates who are very good at computer based tests (have had a lot of time to practice and lots of experience) have each obtained 40 points. EPSO checks whether they satisfy the general conditions, which are:

(a) must be a citizen of one of the Member States of the European Union.
(b) must enjoy full rights as a citizen.
(c) must have fulfilled any obligations imposed by the laws on military service.
(d) must meet the character requirements for the duties involved.

Most likely all do.

Then EPSO checks whether they satisfy the specific conditions. For Competition Law, these are the following:

- A level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least four years attested by a diploma in law
- At least 6 years’ professional experience, at least 3 of which related to the application of competition rules and procedures.

Again, let's assume that only 5 of those candidates in fact are experienced competition lawyers. The rest are taking part just to practice.

At this point, EPSO will of course kick out the 45 candidates who do not satisfy the specific conditions, and will proceed with checking applications of the people who obtained 39 points in the CBT. Again, many of them will be kicked out, and the process continues until EPSO has a large enough list of people who all satisfy all the specific eligibility conditions.

Whether someone unqualified actually gets the full 40 points has absolutely no effect as to the chances of success of the qualified partipants. At the end it's like they had never taken part at all.

The only thing that affects the changes of success of a qualified candidate is if there is another candidate equally qualified, who does better in the CBT.

@Juan @JaGyGy:

JaGyGy, you totally hit the nail on the head! Your answer should be given as a reference for candidates like JUAN, who point the finger at people who use all tools available to succeed in a transparent and fair in its own terms, but still flawed, system.

Juan, when and if you become an EU civil servant, I hope you will be equally respectful of... taxpayers' money and will not take more than 60 minutes lunch break at the Commission, nor lag behind even one day in the preparation of policy positions with millions of euros being at stake, etc. etc.

I also hope that you will be equally careful next time you read EPSO Competition Notices and take note of the purposefully vague terms used in several of their parts as well as the related questions by dozens of people who wonder if their qualifications match those required...Oh well, since someone is not 100% sure if he/shewill pass the talent screener, no, no, one must not apply and waste EPSO money! Sounds legit...NOT!

@valeris and Greg: Guys, it's Saturday evening, I'm going out for a drink. Since you are both hard working people, I think now is the best time for you to sit down and write that complaint against EPSO, those really bad people who did not give you the scores you deserve. LOL.

:-D

@JaGyGy: Many thanks for your explanation on how it really works. This explains too why the CBT's passing score was not known until the selection based on the talent screener was over. I'm happy to know that the concern I pointed out really doesn't exist then.

@Epso Candidate: You are right, JaGyGy's post should be kept as a reference. I discussed this with some people much more experienced than me in Epso's procedures and nobody gave me such an explanation. It is also true that the vague terms of some notices may give rise to comments which are wrong or unjustified. However, I disagree in participating in competitions where you clearly not have the minimum requirements (in most cases there is really no room for interpretation on whether you have the minimum working experience or qualifications required: you do or you don't). I think it's costly signing for every concours just to get some additional practice to become a professional public servant. Luckily, not everybody does this because there would be then many thousand applications in every competition which would make costs even higher.

Thank you.

Good luck & fair winds!