Parliamentary Ombudsman criticises the Finnish Institute of International Affairs for its conduct in the selection of a higher education trainee

Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen has issued a reprimand to the Finnish Institute of International Affairs on a matter concerning the selection of a higher education trainee and the procurement of communications services. He draws the Institute’s serious attention to the development of its administration.

The Ombudsman considers that several points in the Institute’s conduct give rise to criticism.

Selection procedure for the higher education trainee

With regard to the selection process for the higher education trainee, the Ombudsman considers that the Finnish Institute of International Affairs has acted in violation of good administration or otherwise unlawfully as follows:

• The publication of two different job advertisements in two different channels and in such a way that the difference in the content of the advertisements concerned a factor that was decisive from the point of view of considering the application does not fulfil an authority's obligation laid down in the Administrative Procedure Act to treat equally those to whom it is providing services in administrative matters.
• The communication by the Institute’s HR officer to those interested in the placement and to the applicants was not in accordance with the requirement of equality laid down in the Administrative Procedure Act. It was not only a question of stylistic differences, but also of content-related differences that were clearly central from the point of view of the application procedure.
• The of applying the prerequisites set for the higher education trainee in the job advertisement did not comply with the principle of legitimate expectations and the requirement of equality laid down in the Administrative Procedure Act. The information in the job advertisement deviated from the procedure followed in practice, and the notified and adopted procedure was applied to different applicants in different ways.
• The Ombudsman has considered it contrary to good administration and the Administrative Procedure Act that, based on the report received, a written decision by the Director was not made at the Institute on the selection of the trainee. In addition, the memorandum of selection was incomplete in many respects.

Based on the report received, the Ombudsman considers that he has no reason to suspect that persons disqualified under the Administrative Procedure Act participated in the selection process.

Selection of the higher education trainee

The Ombudsman notes that it is the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s duty to monitor the legality of the procedure followed. The Parliamentary Ombudsman may also assess whether the authority has exercised its discretion within the limits permitted by law. On the other hand, the Ombudsman cannot perform a new comparison of the applicants and, in particular, cannot comment on which of the applicants would be the most suitable for the task in terms of competence and personal characteristics, or who should have been selected for the task.

A recruitment decision is a question of an overall assessment. For example, the employer has discretion in deciding how the requirements for the task advertised and the applicants’ merits are emphasised in the comparison.

Although the Ombudsman has criticised the procedure followed in the selection of the higher education trainee, he does not have sufficient grounds to consider that the end result of the selection exceeded the Institute’s powers of discretion.

Procurement of communications services

The Ombudsman criticises the procurement of communications services by the Finnish Institute of International Affairs as follows:

• An explanatory memorandum required by the procurement rules had not been drawn up on the procurement. Without the explanatory memorandum, it is difficult to verify whether the legal principles of administration and other requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the procurement rule have been complied with in the procurement procedure. The Ombudsman is not entirely convinced that the grounds for direct procurement laid down in the procurement rules were at hand.
• The Ombudsman has found it problematic that, in practice, the Institute's activities are subject to different procurement guidelines than what is stated about the applicable procurement guidelines in the Institute's rules of procedure.

Provision of information and reports to the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman considers that the Finnish Institute of International Affairs has neglected its obligation under the Constitution of Finland to provide the Parliamentary Ombudsman with all information required for the oversight of legality that the Ombudsman has requested.

The Ombudsman has considered it necessary that the Institute organise its administration and activities in such a way that the problems which have now arisen will not occur again in the future.

Measures

The report received by the Ombudsman does not indicate in all respects the person or persons responsible for each of the above-mentioned procedures. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has therefore targeted his criticism at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs as an agency.

Pursuant to section 10 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman has issued a reprimand to the Finnish Institute of International Affairs for the above-mentioned practices that are partly contrary to good administration and partly otherwise unlawful, and drawn the Institute’s serious attention to the development of its administration.

The Ombudsman’s decision no 5036/2025 has been published on the website www.oikeusasiamies.fi.

Further information is available from Principal Legal Adviser Heini Färkkilä, tel. +358 9 432 3374.