Oral Exam Hints - UK Cabinet Office

HOW TO PASS
THE INTERVIEW
Supplement to A CANDIDATE’S GUIDE
PRODUCED BY THE
EU STAFFING BRANCH
OF THE CABINET OFFICE
Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

DISCLAIMER
People with a background in EU recruitment provided the information contained in this
guidance but they are neither experts on EU policy nor in the individual fields of a competition.
The advice given is not rocket science; we can provide tips on what to expect and how to
prepare. You need to bear in mind that slight changes are always possible on the day.
The interview, carried out by the selection board, will enable them to complete their
assessment of your suitability to carry out the duties referred to in the competition notice.
The interview will also focus on:
a) your specialised knowledge in your chosen field

b) your knowledge of the main developments in European integration and Community Policies
c) your knowledge of the second community language which you indicated in your application
d) your ability to adjust to a multicultural working environment within the European public
service.
The test will generally be marked out of 40, with a pass mark of 20, and you must obtain at
least the pass mark. Depending on the other interviewees you may well have to obtain a mark
a lot higher than the pass mark.
The Invitation
Your invitation to the oral test (i.e. the interview) will depend on the attainment of a particular
mark in the written tests or on your ranking within a specific number of top candidates. There
may be an interval of several months between the written tests and the interview.
Your interview will almost certainly be held in Brussels, on the date specified in the invitation
letter. In certain exceptional cases or in cases of force majeure, however, the selection board
may consent to an applicant’s request for a change of date.
You will be entitled to a flat-rate contribution towards travelling and subsistence expenses, and
you will be notified of the applicable rates and the procedure to follow in the letter inviting you to
attend the written and/or oral tests.
Format of the Interview
You should expect to be interviewed for 30-45 minutes by a board of at least three or four, and
possibly up to ten members, although not all will necessarily ask questions. The board will
usually be composed of senior EU officials of several nationalities and will not necessarily include
a native English speaker. They will probably not introduce themselves. One of the members is
likely to be a Trade Union representative. Some boards are friendly and open; others are much
more formal.
For most of the time, you will only need to reply in your first language, although you must be
prepared to speak in your second EU language and any others mentioned in your application.
Full interpretation facilities are provided, but if your knowledge of the interviewer's language is
good enough, feel free to dispense with the interpreters’ service. (You can usually tell which
members of the board don't speak your language - they will don earphones.)
Questions are likely to concentrate on EU-related issues, wider current affairs and on your CV.
The board members will have seen your application form and written test paper, and it is quite
probable that they will question you on some aspects of what you have written, e.g. previous
work, travel etc.
In a previous competition, candidates were asked to pick a card from each of three packs and,
after brief preparation, to speak (in their first language) for five minutes on a topic on one of the
cards. Nowadays this procedure is rare.

Interview boards - and questions - vary considerably. You may be asked factual questions
and/or asked for your views on EU-related issues. Some interviewees have reported that they
were asked only very broad questions and were invited to present their views at some length,
others were asked for very specific information. Be prepared for the fact that questions may be
asked in rapid succession - sometimes multiple questions - and that there may not be any follow-
up questions or discussion of what you have said before interviewers switch to another topic.
There are some comments from past interviewees at the end of this guide.
In your second language you may be asked questions on work and personal topics, such as
favourite sports and hobbies, or you may be asked the same type of question as in English.
Occasionally questions in other languages may be interspersed with questions in English, though
it is more usual for all the second (and other) language questions to be grouped together. The
board will not expect you to be fluent, but they will expect you to be able to construct an answer
and communicate it in another language. The most important thing is to demonstrate a
willingness to speak and an ability to get your point across in your second language; perfect
grammar is less important. Just go for it! You will score higher marks for making a number of
good, adequately expressed points than for a couple of
perfectly phrased sentences of little substance. If your second language is rusty, explain that it
will soon come back up to scratch with practice. If you have indicated knowledge of further
languages, you may also be tested on these.
Some recent European Parliament competitions have varied slightly in approach and have also
included questions on management and group exercises with other candidates (similar to Civil
Service board group exercises)
At the end, you will be asked if you have any questions for the board. Remember, however,
they are working to a tight schedule: further questions by you may delay them..
Some Advice
• First impressions do count. Always look smart and leave plenty of time to get to your
interview. Arriving late looks unprofessional and may ruin your chances before you start.
• You may be asked to begin by introducing yourself. Prepare for this in advance by re-
reading your application form and trying to spot possible questions. Has anything happened
since your application that the interviewers should know about? Memorise your academic
and career history, so that you can give a fluent and succinct account of it.
• Be prepared for a provocative question designed to throw you. If this happens, be prepared
to “think on your feet” and demonstrate that you can react well under pressure or in a
difficult situation.
• Be ready for purely factual questions. If you do not know the answer, say so and do not
panic. Even if there are a number of factual questions do not try to evade them and do
not invent.
• Present a positive, friendly image. Think about body language and avoid fidgeting and
sitting awkwardly; make eye contact with your questioner and with other panel members.
• Keep your energy levels up and be responsive. This is your big selling pitch, so look
interested, stay focused and maintain a positive body language i.e. do not slouch in the
chair.

• Show yourself willing to communicate, in a positive, forthcoming and friendly way.
• Do not make negative comments during the interview; a technique that greatly increase
your chances of getting a job offer is projecting a positive, upbeat attitude.
• Do not criticise the Commission (or the institution concerned) too much. Explain the
positive aspects of policies, then if you wish suggest some areas which need to be looked
at.
• Ensure that you demonstrate a real enthusiasm for working in the European Union but avoid
ladling it on too thickly.
• Do not forget that this is a two-way experience. Use the time to find out more about the
opportunity and ask one or two open-ended questions, which you have prepared earlier.
The interviewer will see you as proactive and genuinely interested in the job.
• The onus is on you to sell yourself. Try to use each question to present yourself to the best
advantage and to show the depth of your knowledge.
• Proper preparation gives you an edge regarding job interview techniques but make sure
that you interact well with the interviewer and don’t succumb only to memorised answers.
• An important interview technique is to follow the interview style established e.g. structured
or unstructured and respond to the questions accordingly. Following the style will leave the
interviewer with a more favourable impression of you.
• An effective interview technique is to adjust your speed of speech to match that of the
interviewer and project a relaxed image. Avoid speaking too fast - bearing mind their
English may not be as good as yours.
• Try to construct your answers logically. Answers along the lines of "In the first place.... in
the second place..." tend to go down well.
• Brief yourself thoroughly on two or three areas of EU policy in which you are interested and
on current EU “hot topics”. Also make sure you are aware of more general current affairs
and their relation to the EU by reading the press (successful candidates have mentioned that
reading journals such as The Economist, European Voice http://www.european-voice.com,
Agence Europe, the Euractiv website www.euractiv.com/ etc. before the interview can be
particularly helpful).
• If you have little to say on the subject in question, tell the interviewer and suggest a related
subject of which you have some experience. The interviewers may simply be searching for
topics of which you have knowledge in order to hear you speak.
• Ask for clarification if you are unsure of the question.
• Beware of referring too much to the UK; try to demonstrate knowledge and awareness of
other Member States. Read EU press releases, so that you are aware of the institutions’
(and possibly your interviewers’) perspective on topical issues. Be sensitive to your audience
and tread delicately, if discussing internal reform issues, for example, which have come up
in recent competitions.

• Think how you might feel using the interpretation facilities, and in particular avoid speaking
too quickly and using too many acronyms and colloquialisms. Remember that there will be a
time lapse before you and the non-English-speaking interviewer can register questions and
answers. If you are not used to this, try to practise before the interview.
• Avoid rambling or going off at a tangent.
• If the interview is in a conference room, you might have to use a microphone. If you are
not used to speaking into a microphone, it is worth practising if you have the opportunity.
Remember to push the button on the microphone when you speak
• The jury will remember two parts of your answer in particular:

what you said at the beginning
what you said at the end
• Tell the interviewers when you have reached the end so not to leave them wondering
whether you are going to say anything else.
• For some questions, you might want to say that you would like to spend a moment or two
thinking through the issues before you answer. This will be acceptable but do not do it
after each question.
• If you have any particularly relevant experience, expect to be asked about it. Even if you
have moved on to something else, you should still show that you have kept up to date
with developments.
• Answer questions directly, without such gems as "that is a difficult question". Speak to the
point. If you think you can go on without wandering from the point do so, without waiting
for another question.
• You can give yourself a few moments by using the earphones, but at some point take
them off to show that you understand what is being said to you (in French) without them.
• Do not on the whole make notes. If the question is over-long, say that you will answer one
part and then ask to be reminded of the other part(s). Do not say "I hope I have answered
your questions"
• As you leave, thank the interpreter(s).
After you have attended the oral tests we would appreciate any comments or
suggestions that could be passed on to future competition candidates.
So, ‘Good Luck’ in the oral tests and, if you do get on to the reserve list, please let us know
because we may be able to provide help with the lobbying process.

Past Interviewee comments
Section One: Recent interviews indicating date and whether candidate passed
COURT/COMMISSION/COUNCIL/PARLIAMENT (November 2004) LA7/6 Lawyer-

linguist Candidate Passed
The selection panel consisted of three British officials of which two lawyer-linguists and the
Court’s Head of the English Translation Division.
The interview was structured as follows:
• the Chair introduced the members of the selection panel and explained the structure of
the interview,
• she asked me to explain my reasons for leaving my two previous employers, and why I
wanted to leave my current employer,
• questions on general EU policy,
• question on Community law,
• request for a comparison with UK law of specific areas of French/German or Spanish
law, to be chosen by me, as these are the languages from which I translate,
• questions on how to achieve a balance between quality and quantity when translating,
• questions on aptitude, interest in learning new languages and experience of
computers/translation tools,
• my questions to the panel.
The panel was very professional, friendly, informal and encouraging.
EU questions: what are the advantages and disadvantages of enlargement, and what are the
implications for lawyer-linguists.
Community law questions: types of action an individual can bring before the Court of First
Instance and the Court of Justice; on what grounds can Community legal acts be contested
and what are the implications for the legal acts.
Aptitude questions: would I cope with having my work revised; how do I adapt to working in a
multi-cultural environment.
I received the results within one week.
I indicated my order of preference as follows:
1. Commission
2. Council
3. Parliament
4. Court.
The Chair indicated that there are four posts at the Court and two at the Parliament. I am
however more interested in the Commission and Council so I shall inquire about the likelihood
of vacancies in their legal reviser teams.
ENLARGEMENT CONCOURS FOR NATIONALS OF NEW EU MEMBER STATES A8

EUROPEAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (June 2004) Candidate Passed
There were four people on the board. The exam was held in English which was my 2nd
language (first was Polish). They introduced themselves at the beginning and later asked me
to say few words about myself. (That I had already prepared!)

Then I was asked various questions like:
• Is the word "pillar" included in the Treaties?
• What are the responsibilities of the Commission in each pillar?
• What is the Lisbon Strategy?
• What is the Stability Pact?
• In what way EU's activities influence States activities in the field of Education and Cultural
Affairs?
The strategy that I could suggest to each candidate is as follows:
• have your presentation well-prepared
• be self-confident and open to the board (they are fairly nice and they do want you to see
how good you are)
• be sure that you know how to support things you say, they do want details sometimes
• it's always good to focus your interest on only some EU's activities and once you mention it
in you CV, be sure to be asked detailed questions.
• keep an eye-contact with members on the board - they will treat you like a "friend" in the
discussion
• look smart and be yourself
ENLARGEMENT CONCOURS FOR NATIONALS OF NEW EU MEMBER STATES A8

ECONOMICS (June 2004) Candidate failed
At first we had to wait in a separate waiting room, where the secretary for each individual
interview collected the cvs and the identification documents from each candidate. I was then
called for the interview, which took place in the next room.
There was a 3-person panel and a secretary, with the panel sitting in the opposite side of the
table in a small distance. The head of the panel introduced himself and the rest members and
explained the process of the interview. He was very friendly, which made me feel more
comfortable (as comfortable as possible in a situation like this).
He asked if I could say some things about myself and then he asked about why do I want to
work for the EU institutions, which seems to be a standard question and I had a few things
prepared in advance.
He then passed the interview to the next person, an Italian, who asked me questions on my
specialisation field, Economics.
The questions went like this:
- What are the criteria for a country that wishes to join the eurozone?
- Which are the main responsibilities of the ECB?
- Who sets the euro exchange rate?
- Who is responsible for the eurozone's fiscal policies?
Generally, this section was about which competencies belong to the ECB and which to the
National CBs and Member States.

He then proceeded to the Stability and Growth Pact, about the criticism to it and which is the
strategy for reforming it (I'm not exactly sure what he meant there).
Afterwards, I was asked the following question:
- If you were the Minister of Finance of a developing country, what would be your
macroeconomic strategy? (Besides the basic macroeconomic policies, he expected me
to say something about trade there)
The 3rd member of the panel asked what I knew about:
- The EU's social and regional policies (objectives and goals),

- The EU Constitution,
- The Budget of The Union (sources, where it is spent, etc) and,
- What should we look for in terms of macroeconomic policies in the EU
At the end, the head of the panel asked me if I thought that there is a line as to where the EU
should stop (geographically mostly and in relation with the question of whether Russia could at
sometimes be a member of the Union).
He then asked if I had any questions. Although I told him that I didn't, he was kind enough to
explain about when the results would be ready. So, if you want to know about this, don't be
afraid to ask. They expect you to.
COMMISSION A8 Agriculture (March 2004) Candidate passed
The President of the Tribunal was a German woman, and she introduced herself and the rest
of the people in the room: Tribunal (5 persons), interpreters (3) and the Secretary. She also
explained me how to use the microphone for translation. The other 4 members of the Tribunal
were 2 young man (probably one was an English and the other one from the North of Europe,
that made me the more difficult and insistent questions of the beginning), a Greek man
(questions in English) and a French woman (who didn’t say anything).
The President asked me to introduce myself in about 5 minutes. It took me less than 3
because of nerves. After that, the young men started the interview:
• If tobacco is not good for health, do you think it is correct to give aid to this crop from
European Union?
• Do you know about recent reform in common market organisation of Mediterranean crops
(tobacco, olive oil and cotton) last December 2003?
• Do you know about CAP reform in summer 2003? Could you tell us the main points and
objectives? (I talked in a general way) Could you be more specific?
• In which common market organisation are establish the quota system? (I spoke about milk
market). If that system were removed, how do you think this sector would react to?
• My answers were not very good until this moment, so they invited me to change to
irrigation: a topic that according with my CV, I was more prepared. The Spanish
Government had been asking for investment in irrigation lasts years, but when people from
North of Europe visit some parts of Spain and find those big extensions of plastic
greenhouses, and very intensive farms do not understand/agree. What do you think about
it? Do you think it is necessary to give public support to this kind of agriculture/to carry the
water to these regions?
• Do you think it is necessary to maintain agriculture in these regions above every thing /
however hard it is?
• What does it mean for European Union being part of the World Trade Organisation? In
which sense EU have improved its position with last CAP’s reform?
• Do you know about European Exterior Policy? What do you think about it? (I told about
war in Iraq and the different points of view in Europe, on one hand UK and Spain and on
the other hand France and Germany). How do you improve/change it?

• The President said the exam of my second language started, and the Greek man
asked:
• He told me that the process to elect the new President of the European Commission would
start soon.. What would you think if the new President of the Commission would be a
woman? What do you think if she would be Raúl’s wife, the football player of the Real
Madrid? Which woman would you like as a President?
• Where did you go with your Erasmus grant? (I said to Nottingham, in UK. Which difference
did you find between English and Spanish countryside?
The President said my second language exam had finished, and again in Spanish
the young men:
What would you do if you realised that a fellow of your work is changing funds to his/her
country? (They asked several the same question.) And if he/she do not agree with you? And if
he/she is german, as the President, and argues that his/her country have been contributing for
a long time and it is time to recover that money?
The President said my interview had finished.
Told about my knowledge of French, but she answered they only should know about my
second language, English, but not the third.
COMMISSION A7/A6 Research (March 2004) Candidate Passed
Main chairman David Miles wasn't present. Katleen Engelbosch acted as chairman. Other
members were Brian X (British, don't remember surname), Wolfram Schrimpf (JRC Ispra),
Jean-Claude Launay, language assessor" (Italian, no name card, possibly Claudio Ronchi, the
alternative Chairman?) and a representative from EPSO (British woman).
I waited outside the interview room, and at 10:45 when the interview was scheduled to start,
the EPSO representative came to collect my CV & photo and to check my ID. She went away
to photocopy the CV, and the board then discussed my candidature in private for about 15
minutes. The EPSO representative returned to call me into the room. The panel were sitting on
one side of the table, and a place with paper and a glass of water had been prepared on the
other side for me. I placed down my jacket and bag, turned to the selection board and said
good morning. The board responded and then the chairman explained the order of events, and
introduced the board members who all had name cards in front of them, except the language
assessor, whose card simply said "language assessor". The chairman explained that the
interview would assess my specialised knowledge in the field, my knowlede of EU integration,
my knowledge of a second language and my ability to work in a multi-cultural environment.
The chairman explained that a time emphasis would be placed on my specialised knowledge.
The chairman asked me start with a "5 to 7 minutes" introduction of myself, outlining the
relevant parts of my candidature for the position.
I described my education and experience, explaining what my role in each of the positions
was, but after I had covered the main points of my work experience the chairman interupted
and said "right, I think we'll go straight to the questions". I had looked at my watch before and
after my introduction and I hadn't talked over the 5 minutes so it did strike me as peculiar that
she had stopped me. However, a large part of the questions that followed were on my
experience and perhaps she just wanted to make sure there was enough time for them, I
really don't know.
The chairman passed to Barry X for questioning (questions are as best as I can remember - I
will have forgotten some questions and re-phrased most of them):
• You've worked in PV, what is your opinion of the prospects of integrating PV into the
market?
• What sort of timescale to you envisage for this?
• You must have heard of the hydrogen economy, how does a fuel cell work?
• How does a fuel cell differ from a conventional battery?
• What is the biggest renewable energy in use at the moment in the EU?
• What is the fastest growing renewable energy in the EU at the moment?
• In view of the electricity blackouts last year in the US and EU, what can the commission do
to reduce the chance of this happening in the EU?
• Have you heard of the concept of externalisation of costs?
The questioning moved to Wolfram Schrimpf:
• In terms of the global problem of climate change, what is the significance of aerosols in
climate change?
• Still in the theme of climate change, what is the main reason for the increase of
greenhouse gases?
The questioning seemed to change direction, and Wolfram Schrimpf read a question from a list
(the previous questions were not scripted):
• What are the economic and political implications of the new research framework
programme?
• What are the main differences between FP5 and FP6?
• What are the driving forces behind the new programme?
The questioning moved to the chairman, who asked questions of EU integration:
• Regarding the new constitution, what features do you think should be included that are
not currently in the treaties, and what should not be included?
• What was my personal view of mentioning religion in the new constitution?
• What did I understand by the principal of subsidiarity?
The questioning moved to the language assessor, in Italian:
• (In Italian) Just a general question to hear you speak some Italian, and start things off,
what do you feel would be the main differences between the work you do now as a
scientist, and working in the field of policy? (he seemed to be deliberately talking at length
and quickly in a low voice to test my comprehension as well as my ability to speak)
After my answer, he turned to the chairman and said that's fine. The chairman said that we
still had a couple of minutes left, if he wanted to ask a few more questions…
• (In Italian) What did I feel were the main advantages and disadvantages of working a
multiculural environment, and how did I feel I would manage in such an environment?
• (In Italian) Okay, just a slightly provocative question to finish, do you feel that policy
should science or that science should lead policy?
The chairman then asked me if I wanted to ask any questions, but that I didn't have to. I
asked:
• Regarding mobility, which is obviously a rewarding experience during the early stages of a
career, but could be viewed in a negative light when one is older and for example has
children enrolled at the local school, I wondered what the panel's view was on mobility and
working in the Commission?
The chairman answered first, saying that mobility was generally a positive thing since it
normally involved moving department and not a "geographical" movement. The chairman said
that the Commission was developing a new policy on mobility at the moment, but that they
would never force someone to move ("we're not the army"). The other members joined in,
commenting that mobility helps you're career (yes, but surely you don't mean geographical

mobility etc.) and they were exchanging opinions amongst themselves which made me think
that the question had gone down quite well. I asked another:
• On the back of the last discussion, I am interested to hear the panel's inside view on
professional development in the Commission and the concept of continuous learning?
Again the chairman answered first, saying that training in the Commission was not only a right,
but an obligation. I was told that the Commission employees must spend a minimum of 10
days each year on training, which varies from language courses to refreshing your knowledge
in a particular field. Employees can request to spend two weeks in any Member State to learn
the language, and can go for a year in the US to lecture. The chairman almost seemed to be
doing a PR job for the Commission. The chairman then announced that unfortunately we had
run out of time and that the interview was over.
COMMISSION A7/A6 Research (March 2004) Candidate Failed
I arrived for the interview about 40 minutes early. I was treated to trashy French tv in the
waiting hall until I asked them to turn it off. Trashy TV in French is not what you want when
preparing for an interview in Italian! At the appointed time, someone came and asked for my
CV and photo and my expenses claim. I had forgotten my air ticket at the hotel, but they said I
could post it.
The rapporteur took me in and told me where to sit. It was one of those long boardroom
tables with me on one side and about 10 of them on the other side. Not all the people asked
questions. When they introduced themselves and their institutions, I was relieved to note that
they had name plates on their places because I would never have remembered all their names.
They all had big piles of papers but my only comfort was a few bottles of water and glasses
which was provided so I drank some while they were asking me questions. The chair of the
committee was an Italian (my 2nd language) and wasn't very friendly. Every so often, he would
screw up his eyes and look bored or tired or something. He had a rather disinterested feel
about him. But the rest of them were friendly. He also made me feel really good at the end
when I asked how long till the results by telling me "of course if you don't pass you shouldn't
think it means you're not very clever because there are so many people you know." I hope
this was just a standard remark but it's not calculated to make you feel comfortable.
The chair explained the interview format which followed exactly what was set out in the call for
the concours. That is self presentation, questions on your field, questions on Europe, multi-
cultural questions and second language questions. In practice, they didn't follow these exactly
in order and they mixed them up sometimes. For example I was asked to explain a common
encryption technique in my second language! Here are more or less the questions from each
section:
My general impression was that the questions were very broad, which is not kind to the
interviewee because you have to think a lot to make a nice structured answer.
Introduce yourself in 5 mins

----------------------------------
Not too much problem here I don't think. I spoke slowly and clearly and they seemed
interested. I think I went slightly over time but it didn't matter. They said they had read my CV
so I think that was a hint that they didn't want a plain repetition of the CV but the highlights.
I'm not sure how far I succeeded in this, but … In the end I didn't really feel nervous for most
of it. I was worried about blocking up when asked a difficult question and spending more
energy thinking about the fact that I had to think about it than about the question. But this
didn't happen much.
My field
-----------
• What do you think are the most important areas in future EU research policy.

I said the most important area was having a system wide approach and using emergent
systems research instead of decompositional systems research. Was quite pleased with this as
a first answer.I had read an IST advisory group report on this, so I was able to make some of
the points from this.There was another similar question where I also talked about the need to
co-ordinate and focus on Europe's strengths and for government to be the first customer –
(also from this report). At one point someone asked me about particular technologies to be
concentrated on in research and I talked about the importance of semantics and self
discovering/configuring services. It's a bit of a blur, but that came up somewhere.
• What are the most important aspects of EU security policy and how do you think it needs
to develop.
I talked about the new cybersecurity agency and Prodi's announcement (only a few days ago,
which I read in European Voice in the Hotel) about a new European Security policy.
I said it needs to focus on the citizen and not on the state. I gave the example of Microsoft
Palladium technology for DRM which was going to lock users into the MS standard.
I talked about standards and how we need open, concensual standards and not top down
standards. It's all in the ISTAG reports…
I had intended to talk about the security threats from ambient intelligence and the complexity
of systems but I forgot about that. whoops.
• What do you think the key components of an interoperability policy might be (or
something like that).
I said that standards were important and it was part of building the Ambient Intelligence
vision. I talked about the need for consensus based, bottom up standards.
• You said you were part of the .com boom – what do you think the prospects are for e-
commerce in
Europe.
I said that during the .com boom people thought it was free money but I thought the .com
crash had taught us that e-commerce was good for some things and not for others. For
example good for travel, but not good for clothes.
Europe:
• You work in the JRC in Italy: what do you think of the other JRC institutes.
No clue basically. I attempted an answer saying that I thought the research into the processing
of nuclear waste in Karlsruhe was important but I said I didn't know much about the other
institutes. I think that might have been an Italian question. I completely forgot that I know a
lot about the work of the Sevillia institute and we even have some joint projects. Never mind. I
guess you can't get everything. I think that question might have been in Italian so it wasn't a
good way to start off the Italian bit…
• Tell me about integrated projects. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the new
instruments?
I said the advantages were the integration and collaboration and shared research they
produce. He said there was nothing new here (might have been his attempt to be Mr Nasty but
it wasn't that nasty). I said it was a matter of scale and that the high impact results due to
large scale, I said that the collaborative effects would be greater in scale.
If you were evaluating an IP or Noe what would be the criteria you would use. This was a gift
for me because I am working on an IP and wrote a fair bit of the proposal. I think I got all the
criteria listed in the FP6 web site.
• How do you think that research relates to other areas of European Policy. In Italian, but
there was no interpreter and it seemed the other jury members were interested in my reply so
I asked which language to reply in. The chair said whichever you like but one of the others, a
Dutchman I think didn't look happy and when I said I would do it in English for him, he looked
happy and there was some laughter.
I talked about competition because many research results need to have competition controls.

I talked about education because of the need for personel and for people to understand the
technologies and to enable the actual process of education.
I talked about enlargement because technologies like wireless LAN are a fast way of rolling out
communications in rural areas.
*In Italian – so you're an expert on encryption and security can you explain one encryption
technique. I explained that I wasn't an expert on encryption but I explained the basic concepts
of RSA encryption anyway. I stumbled on the word for decrypt because it isn't the same as the
one for to encrypt but otherwise that went OK. He asked me if I knew about MD5 was and I
did so I explained that in Italian. That went OK. I offered to talk about quantum cryptography
but he said one was enough.
More general:
• Why did you apply for the concours and where do you see yourself in 10 yrs (that old
chestnut).
I said because I thought my present job and the jobs being offered were particularly suited to
me as a person because they had a technical side, and a more conceptual side (I studied
Physics and Philosophy) and I liked the idea of evaluating or managing projects and
contributing to policy which were the 2 example jobs given in the call. I don't think I answered
the one about the 10 yrs but hopefully what I said about liking my research work and wanting
to work in policy etc…. might be an answer to that. I also should have said something about
believing in Europe etc… but I forgot.
General comments.
For the questions at the end, I asked if the marks of the written test we did in September were
taken into account and was told that the marks for the interview and the marks for the written
test are added together for the final result. This I didn't know. I also asked when the results
would come. They said the list has to be out by the 2nd of May (this was 9th Feb) and that it
will probably be valid until the beginning of Framework 7. They also told me that the list would
be valid for all the EU institutions.
I had put down a second and 3rd language but they didn't test this. I didn't like the fact that in
the European model CV, you only have the choice of excellent, good or elementary because
my Italian is certainly not bilingual. But I went for excellent anyway. I hope this didn't reflect
badly.
I decided beforehand to try to enjoy the experience and to try to make it a pleasant
experience for the jury. This helped a lot with the nerves which were not really a problem. I
think this is partly because it took the focus away from me and my self consciousness. I also
booked a hotel with a gym and a pool and the night before, worked out, swam and sauna'd.
The morning of the interview, I went swimming. This helped to sleep and to be in a +ve frame
of mind. Other nerves tips– remember that the Jury are your equals. Remember that you can
never know exactly what they are going to ask you or how it is going to go, so don't spend too
much effort thinking "will they ask this, will they ask that, will it go ok, will it not" – but don't
let that stop you studying…
When I came out and was on my way down the escalator to freedom I was suddenly accosted
by a French guy who doing the same competition that Friday. He obviously wanted me to tell
him the questions and kept saying – what was it like? – was it difficult? – etc... I thought it
was a bit of a cheek. I don't know if he was a plant by the panel but I just told him to go and
read the call.
COMMISSION B5/B4 Documentation/Library (March 2004) Candidate passed
My overriding impression of the interview was that the panel had already decided on the result
before it started. The panel consisted of 5 ladies, two of whom were responsible for questions
on professional issues, two of whom appeared to have a human resources role and one other,
who asked only one question. Having prepared my oral cv scrupulously I had no trouble in
reciting it and there were no further questions. The panel appeared surprised by it. I had
gained information regarding the likely format of the interview in advance, partly from the
German equivalent of the Foreign Office (Auswaertiges Amt) and knew that questions would
be asked on the candidate's attitude to multicultural workplaces. Having included this in my
oral cv this element was shorter later on.
After the cv I was asked questions on the topic of my written exam. These questions were only
very loosely connected to the topic and threw me at first. My impression was that of being
firmly guided to the right subject matter in my responses as I had not prepared the topic
beyond what I considered to be its scope. Although one receives a copy of the written test half
an hour before the interview I would strongly recommend keeping all possible notes from the
written exam and reading them up well before the interview. For those who had thrown away
their rough notes or left them in the exam room it would be useful to think back and recreate
the response if possible.
The next section lasted 10 minutes and was conducted entirely in German - questions on the
EU. These were very broad, such as "what important things will be happening in the EU this
year" - in 2004 there was plenty to cite. I was unable to name all of the core elements of the
Convent's constitution paper.
Questions then followed on my subject area (libraries) which were very closely related to the
EU environment and not so much to library management theory, as I had expected.
The multicultural section was shorter than I expected, but I was asked how I as head of unit
would act to introduce a new Hungarian colleague to the staff. My impression is that one is not
expected to treat new colleagues from Eastern European countries differently to others, if at all
possible. If was then asked what advantages and disadvantages arise from the multicultural
nature of the EU. I tried to emphasise the advantages whilst not overlooking obvious
difficulties in communication.
There were no questions on hobbies or on personal strengths and weaknesses.
The interview was the last before the panel's lunch break and they all appeared relaxed and
under no time pressure. The interview thus overran 12 to 15 minutes beyond the 45 minutes
allocated, which in my opinion was a good sign. In all, the atmosphere was pleasant and it was
the easiest and least stressful interview I have ever experienced.
Translator LA6/LA7 (March 2004) Candidate passed
I was really nervous before the interview, more nervous actually than I expected to be. When I
got to the waiting room I sat there for a while chatting to a very nice young man who was
waiting to be interviewed as a French translator. Then a (nice friendly) lady from EPSO came
and took my CV, copied it, and vanished with it, obviously to give it to the panel so they could
read it before I came in.
I was called in right on time and taken to the room by the EPSO lady. There were six panel
members and the EPSO lady, and me. Everyone was round a big oval-shaped table, them sort
of ranged along three sides and me all alone on the fourth.
The Chairman introduced himself and everyone else briefly and then told me that I'd be asked
questions about 1) translation, 2) the EU, and 3) general questions "so that we can get a
sense of what sort of person you are". They were roughly as follows:
Translation:
I had sounded confident on my CV about my professional translation experience and had been
daring enough to put that I knew what distinguished a good translation from a bad one. I was
waiting for a question on that, and got it verbatim: what distinguishes a good translation from
a bad one? (He very nicely said, we know you can DO a good one because your test
translations were good, which relaxed me a bit). I answered, the good one is not only accurate
with regard to the source text, but is also well written in English and contains no traces of the
syntax of the source text. The follow-up was: is it better to write fluent English than to
produce a slavishly accurate translation? I said that of course it is best to do both, but that
forced to choose I'd plump for good English because over the years I have seen loads of
perfectly accurate translations that are excruciating to read. What sort of texts did I think were
most important in respect of good English? I said general information texts, which have to be
readable. And that if it was e.g. a contract or a legal document then obviously accuracy and
strict fidelity to the source text would take precedence over readability.
This seemed to satisfy the questioner and he went on to ask me about my workflow, how I
actually went about doing a translation. I went through the steps, laying it on thick about how
many times I proof things. He said "what sort of mistakes is it possible to make in a
translation?" and I sat there for what felt like ages thinking, "well you could miss a bit out or
misunderstand the source and translate wrongly but that is too obvious, there must be some
deep EU answer that he is looking for". After an eternity he helpfully said "well you could miss
a bit out couldn't you" and I said "yes, yes, or misconstrue something". (This was an example
of what nerves can do!)
I was also asked – and this was a recurring theme – whether I was revised or edited by
others. Being a freelancer, I am not generally, but this is one of the bits I wished I'd thought
about more and answered better. I had lots of those "now why didn't I say that" moments in
the lift down afterwards. I mean, good agencies revise you, I have collaborated on some
projects where we revised each other, and my first job was as an assistant editor where the
editor revised me during the trial period on the job. So I fluffed this a bit.
OK, on to the next person. I'd put on my CV that I knew Trados and she asked me a couple of
questions about the features of Trados TWB, obviously checking that I really did know Trados.
She asked what sort of texts it was useful for and I said repetitive stuff like annual reports, and
I also knew that technical translators use it a lot (I am not one of those but I know they do).
Also that the concordance function meant that you could really use TWB as a dictionary and
term bank.
Then she started asking me about machine translation. I had read on their website about
Systran but had very elementary knowledge of it, and couldn't really answer her questions
about what it would be useful for. I just said, "I know you use it but I really don't know much
about it". Didn't feel I answered that bit well but felt it was better to be honest and say I didn't
know than to try and waffle.
The last translation question (this, remember, was only a month or so before Enlargement)
was, how do you think enlargement will affect the translation service? I said I expected it was
a huge problem of training and recruitment, also logistics. I'd read a bit about "relay
translation" and "relay interpreting" and said something about that. Also added something
upbeat like "Problems are just there to be solved aren't they". She thanked me for my answer
and seemed happy with that.
The EU
After reading accounts of other people's interviews, I'd been expecting really hard questions
but they were fairly general. Most of the questions were asked by the chairman. I live in
Scandinavia and was asked why the Scandinavian countries are so anti-EU. I explained why, as
I see it, and also related it to the UK being anti-EU, which seemed to impress them a bit since
it showed I'd thought about EU scepticism as European phenomenon. Was asked why Sweden
voted no in the Euro referendum. I said, in the course of my answer, that I voted yes, and was
asked rather searchingly why. This was obviously a question to see what my basic attitude to
the EU was. I was also asked – this was the most complex question and really the only one
that required some previous reading – whether the balance between the Council and the EP
should be altered in favour of the EP. I said an emphatic "no" and he looked a bit surprised
and asked why. I said that would make the EU more supranational and less
intergovernmental, and coming from one EU-sceptic nation and living in another, I didn't think
it was reasonable to move in that direction since public opinion was not on board. He seemed
quite happy with that answer. It seemed more important to be able to back up an opinion with
an argument, than what the opinion was. I was also asked (by someone else) whether
Enlargement was a Good Thing and why. I barbled on about supporting the new democracies
of Eastern Europe and creating a more equal Europe, learning from each other, blah blah.
Me & General
I found this bit all a bit strange, because there were a lot of those sort of interview questions
you read about Human Resources people going courses to learn to ask. I was asked what
translation I was most proud of. Hm. I dredged one up (a book about drug abuse), but added
that really I was most proud of having made a success of being a freelance translator, that I
felt quite well established and clued up about my profession. I was also asked about my
biggest translation mistake. Totally unprepared for that one! I sat chewing my lip and said that
well, obviously it happens occasionally that someone gets back to me with "negative feedback"
but that you just have to deal with it, and I couldn't really point to a huge mistake over the
years. I was also asked (this is where they got back to harping on about revision) how I would
feel about working in a team rather than alone as I do now. I said, truthfully, that it is a
number of years since I felt I worked alone, since there are these very good mailing lists, I
collaborate with colleagues sometimes, and so on. The lady persisted however and asked, if
you do your first translation for us and it comes back covered in red ink, how will you, an
experienced translator, react to that? I said general stuff about how you can't walk into a new
job and think you know everything, and I would go and ask the person to explain the reasons
for the red ink to learn from what they said.
I had put down on my CV that I had been a political activist and that it had taught me to get
on with all sorts of people. Got asked about that in what I thought was a sort of odd way,
something like "so you have strategies and techniques for dealing with people you don't like". I
said, "oh, that sounds cynical" which had the poor questioner going "oh no, no, I didn't mean
it like that" and I just said something about how we all tend to hook up with people who are
like us and who have stuff in common with us, but in business or politics or (remembered to
add this!) the workplace, you just have to get along with everyone. I was asked how much I
actually translated as a freelancer, how many words/pages a year etc. I didn't have a clue and
said "the only thing I keep count of is how much I invoice each month" which amused them. I
did say that I supported myself translating though, to get the point across that it was actually
my job.
I was asked would I like to learn a "new" EU language and I was really happy to be asked that
– it probably showed – and said yes. I was asked which and took the chance to point out that I
had studied Russian at one point and that the Slavonic languages were the most automatic
choice.
I was also asked: you are a successful freelancer, you have your own business – why do you
want to give that up and come to work for us? I said that my husband kept asking me the
same thing (general chuckling) so I had thought about it, and the answer was: the EU as an
organisation interests me, its attitude to languages fascinates me, and the professional
challenge attracted me.
All of a sudden the chairman said that our time was up (I couldn't believe it) and asked if I had
any questions for them. I said I did actually, and asked what life was like generally working as
an EU staff translator, what the hours were like, what the commute was like in Brussels and
Luxembourg, and said I was asking because I had two small children. They answered helpfully
about that, and there was some friendly bickering in the panel about whether living in Brussels
or Luxembourg was better, which was the light note on which the interview ended.
Can't remember anything else specific that they asked. My general impression, and the tips
that I can pass on, are as follows.
The panel situation was more nerve-wracking than I thought, even though everyone was very
friendly and relaxed in what I (an expat) think of as a very a British sort of way – sort of low-
key and humorous, while getting the business done. My comfort in this was that everyone
probably finds it equally nerve-wracking.
They were very keen to get a sense of how a lone freelancer would fit into a team and take to
having their work revised and checked by others. They want to see whether one will cope with
this or be a prat about it. Be prepared to talk about your experience of being revised and
working with others.
I was surprised – though, with hindsight, I shouldn't have been really – by how much they
asked about translation. I'd advise people to have thought about translation and be prepared
to say what they think constitutes a good translation. Be prepared to say why. Be prepared to
give examples: in that sort of translation this would be important, in that sort, that would be
important.

Read up a bit about Systran and other tools used at the EU – you don't need to be an expert,
just show that you are interested – in case they ask about that. If you haven't got Trados or
another CAT tool, read up a bit about them and look interested in working with them.
I got the impression that they liked the fact that I came from the UK but lived abroad, since it
meant they didn't have to worry about me adjusting or not being multicultural enough. So if
you have always lived in the UK, I'd be prepared to emphasise time you have spent abroad
and to say appropriate things (if asked) about how much you enjoy new countries and so on.
As for the EU stuff – be fairly clued up about the nuts and bolts of its history and structure,
know the different institutions and the balance between them, have opinions about them, and
be prepared to show that you think the EU is an interesting organisation that you have a
basically positive view of. Know current events within and relating to the EU.
In my CV I had put French and Spanish as languages 3 and 4, and had put "Good" in all four
categories. I think that is quite important because they mentioned how important French is
and asked if I'd be prepared to "bring your French up to speed" which I of course said Amen
to. If you have school French, don't be shy and put Elementary because they won't test it
anyway. I'd put Good because it obviously is a concern to them.
And one last thing: in the notice of competition, they'd said that all languages from the written
tests would be tested at the interview, so I spent ages practising my spoken Danish – but not
a word was spoken in any other language than English, which I'd like to have known
beforehand since it would have been one less thing to worry about. I don't know if they'd
release information like that before an interview but it might be worth asking if the competition
notice has said this and you are nervous about your spoken language skills.
ENLARGEMENT CONCOURS FOR NATIONALS OF NEW EU MEMBER STATES A8 LAW

(March 2004) Candidate Passed
Before I begin my story (testimony) on the interview in Brussels I need to stress that the
competition I took part in was in many aspects different from “ordinary” competitions, which
are held by EPSO. This was the first competition organized for applicants from new member
states (Poland among others), therefore strict, national quota was applied and the competition
lacked any deeper, specific specialization despite general one (“Law, A8”).
Nevertheless general rules were usual: applicants were invited to a “no-windows” waiting
room. I had to spend there almost one hour as the interviews were out of schedule. Finally, I
was invited to the “exam room” where a panel comprised of three persons was waiting for me
(before that EPSO’s secretary collected my updated CV and reimbursement documents). The
chairman introduced the panel: chairman was a German official from the Commission; the
other man was Spaniard from the Council and a French lady from Parliament. The Chairman
explained the rules and particular parts of the exam. So, my questions were as follows:
1. Standing of natural and legal persons under art. 230 TEC
a. General rules: Plaumann and Cordoniu cases

b. What is the standing of private associations?
c. Is it possible to seek annulment of directives? And when?
2. Human rights in EU law
a. General place of HR in EU law

b. I was asked to read and interpret art. 6 TEU
c. What is the difference between “freedoms” and “rights”
d. Different questions on interpretation of this article
e. What is the place for ECHR in EU laws
3. “General” EU questions
a. “Failure to act” action (art. 232 TEC):

i. Who has standing?
ii. Omissions of which institutions maybe reviewable?

b. What is the name of agreement with ACP countries?
i. Why is it this name
ii. What are the basic provisions of this treaty
c. State aid in EU law

i. What is the general rule?
ii. When may there be some exemptions?
d. What are the community own resources?

i. List resources
ii. Where are these resources regulated?
e. Schengen agreement
i. What are the basic rules?
ii. What is the status of new member states
iii. What is the status of: Norway and Switzerland?
4. Question out side EU law: What are the sources of international public law?
5. Questions on “multicultural sensibility”

a. When did you negotiate recently? What was the result?
b. “Case problem”: 25 member states agree to introduce ten new holidays. They are supposed
to seek common agreement on exact dates. What dates would you propose? What would be
your criteria?
Plus, in the very beginning: could you comment on your CV??
In general they were very kind and nice although very strict and did not let me even slightly
change the topic of the questions. They did not show any sign (e.g. smiles, nod) on what I
was saying or react to my answers (except for the last “multicultural questions” where they
started to interact with me). At one point, they asked me about the sources I prepared for the
exam from but I have no clue what it means. In summary: hard questions (at least for me),
some very detailed into ECJ’s rulings in friendly atmosphere. If asked I would judge my
chances as 60%.
COMMISSION A7/A6 Research – Sustainable Development (January 2004)

Candidate failed
In English :
1. Talk about your CV in 5-7 minutes

2. Thinking of the different modes of transport – air, land and water – and the current
threat of terrorism, should actions be taken for particular modes and why?
3. How has technology made transport more environmentally-friendly?
4. Do you know the name of the programme that puts hydrogen buses on the road?
5. Talk about the development of high speed trains and the technology needed?
6. Do you know what the …….. programme is?
7. What are the gases that cause global warming?
8. In what percentages?
9. Explain the greenhouse effect?
10. You know about the Kyoto Protocol, what is the current situation?
11. What does intermodal mean to you?
12. What is the programme for this?
13. What does the Financial Perspective mean to you?
14. How many Commissioners are there?
15. How many of them are women?
16. What is “fly-by-wire”?
17. Biodiversity is at risk – why is this important?
18. What were the developments of the 6th Framework programme compared with the 5th
and what improvements should be made in the 7th?
19. What are the priority areas identified in the 6th Framework programme regarding
sustainable development?
20. What do we need to do with research policy in general in the EU to get up to the
standard of the USA?
21. What % of GDP is research in Europe, USA and Japan?
22. Give your opinion in the use of nuclear energy?
In French:
23. Why do you want to work in the European Commission?
24. What do you feel about working in a multi-cultural environment?
25. Do you see yourself as a team worker or someone who works autonomously?
26. If you passed, would you choose to work in a DG where you already have experience
eg Transport, or Research?
My question:
Given that you are recruiting sustainable development officials, is there an increase in
sustainable development posts or will there be a restructuring?
COMMISSION A8 Agriculture (December 2003) Candidate Passed
Well, I've just stopped shaking after my grilling, and in case it's of any use for you, I thought
I'd let you know what I was asked and what the procedure was. I had all 6 people on the jury
in front of me - pretty intimidating in itself, it lasted the full 45 minutes, and the two people
that knew me weren't allowed to mark me, but were allowed to ask me questions (the worst
possible compromise in my opinion).
The chairwoman started by introducing the rest of the jury and explained to me what would
happen, I then had to present myself and my CV for an unspecified amount of time, and at the
end explain my motivation for working at the Commission. By the time I did this I had
practised it a number of times in front of a mirror (something someone else had told me to do
that made me feel like a complete prat, but did the trick!). I felt this part went well - the
workshop was very useful in this aspect.
Then it was time for the specialised knowledge, and don't believe anything you've heard about
being able to steer the interview to talk about what you want to - they have a list of questions
in front of them that they stick to regardless. I was asked nothing about anything that had
happened recently which was really frustrating.
1) can we have a common agricultural policy in an enlarged EU?

I gave what I thought was an ok answer, but the guy who asked me obviously didn't.
2) That's not really what I meant. How can we have a common agricultural policy when the
new member states agricultural sectors are way behind ours?
3) That's not really what I meant. With recent CAP developments, isn't this going to create a
two tier policy? I tried to answer this section as best I could, overlapping a lot, but each
time giving them some more information. By the third question I was beginning to feel like
a complete moron despite knowing that I knew a lot on this topic. Oh well. No charming
this man round with a smile!!
4) You mentioned Sapard. How does that help? That was ok.
5) I disagree with what you said about quality (I know English people don't like being
disagreed with??!! I said I didn't mind!). Why is New Zealand lamb cheaper in British
supermarkets than Scottish lamb? I think this was ok.
6) Where do you see the CAP in 20 years?

7) If we have fewer subsidies, why have a CAP? My own fault - I dug a hole. Editor's note:
Leave spade outside interview room.
8) What do you think about Turkey's accession to the EU?
9) Can we really afford to support a country like Turkey?
10) What will we have to do to bring Turkey up to our standards?
11) What effect will supporting Turkey have on our rural development budget? What effect will
it have on the CAP? (Same man that made me feel a moron before did it again).
12) What does Turkey need to do before it can open its accession negotiations (or something
like that)?
13) What are the ethical and political problems of Turkey joining the EU?
French part - very short, done by a very nice lady.
14) Do you think the Eurovision song contest contributes to the European identity?
15) What do you think would be a more effective way of creating a European identity (I had
said that Eurovision wasn't very highly thought of in the UK and suggested promoting the
Erasmus scheme instead because it got young people interested in their European
neighbours - seemed sufficient).
16) Do you think European civil servants should maintain neutrality?
17) In a moral or legal context?
18) What would you do if you found out that someone in your unit was granting favours to
their member state?
19) What about if it was your director?
The end - so ok if you were up to date on Turkey and enlargement - which I wasn't
particularly. I'd written all about enlargement in the last exam so was sure they'd ask me
about something different. Sadly nothing about the Consitution or the Stability pact and I was
sure these would come up.
I left with my heart in my mouth, sweating profusely, but standing tall. The glass of water
they'd given me was very welcome. Moral of the story: relax as much as possible, take time to
think, don't worry about what you don't know, just try and give a common sense answer, don't
be put off by the one that harangues you, and however badly you think it goes, there will
always be some good moments that you can salvage from it. You have to focus on these until
the end of March I reckon - which is when the results are due, and remember that it's not the
end of the world if you feel a complete prat. I did on at least two occasions. I'll also add that
they did the most they could to make me feel comfortable and, all bar the one I shall refer to
as moron man (on my part not his), smiled at me when I smiled at them which was very
reassuring.
COMMISSION A8 Environment (December 2003) Candidate Failed
All six members of the panel were present, and the chairwoman made the structure of the
interview clear from the start: it would be split into four separate sections of questioning and I
would have only one interlocutor for each part.
1. Present the main points of your CV in five minutes: this went fine as I had practiced in
advance and the workshop had been helpful in preparing.

2. Environment section: this was the toughest part (as I had expected, since it was also my
weakest).
• How does integration of environment into other policies work with respect to the financial
sector? Gave a general answer but talked more about economic aspects.
• I was thinking more about the role of companies and their accounting procedures. Spoke a
bit about Corporate Social Responsibility but was not clear what he was getting at. Went
on to talk about internalising external environmental costs, which seemed okay.
• Can you tell me how the EU is involved in the field of water policy? Okay, though my
answer prompted a more specific follow-up question where I did not have much to add!
• The Treaty mentions working towards a ‘high’ level of environmental protection. How can
we quantify this?
What if it is a new field where we have no records? Okay, talked about need for solid
information on which to base policy making.
• And how do we quantify environmental problems? How do we reflect these in economic
statistics like GDP? Okayish.
• What is the EU’s role in nuclear energy?
Is it limited to nuclear safety? Are there any other aspects?
Can you tell me about the conference in Rio which preceded the Johannesburg
conference? What was decided there?
3. EU section: this was mostly fine
• Started tough with a question about European Investment Bank and the differences with
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
• Do you know any specific mechanisms for integrating environmental factors in loans from
the EIB? Tough one again.
• What were the stages which led up to EMU? Gift of a question.
And what about the Stability and Growth Pact and its future?
How about the linkages between EMU and environment policy?
You mentioned dealing with constituents’ problems when you were working in an MEPs’
office. How would the EP deal with issues raised by constituents?
4. Working in the Commission: all fine
• What skills would you bring to the Commission, what are your strengths?
• If you could choose any course to improve your skills, what would it be?
• What do you think of the Commission reform and the way it’s going?
• Wouldn’t you mind being classified as a Brussels bureaucrat?
• What are the dis/advantages of working with other nationalities?
• You do not have an environment training, how did you prepare for and pass the first round
questions on environment since these were quite technical? This one made me laugh. I
gave an honest answer (that I had found them hard but had tried to study as much as
possible).
5. Second language part (French): short and easy questions.
• What do you think of living in Brussels?

• What did you think of life studying at the College of Europe?
• What do you like to do in spare time? Which parts of Europe have you visited?
Overall the interview was pretty relaxed and the panel were friendly and pleasant. This put me
at ease and I felt more and more comfortable as the interview went on, especially as the
hardest questions came at the start. The questions seemed to be picked from prepared lists,
but I was also asked a number of follow-up questions related to things I had mentioned in
previous answers. A useful lesson is therefore to be careful with the examples you give, as you
may have to back these up. In general I tried to give sensible answers, even if these were
sometimes short on detail.

Unfortunately they told me we will now have to wait until mid-March for the results of this
concours
COMMISSION A8 Environment (December 2003) Candidate Passed
The Jury was composed of 5 officials from DG Environment (of which 2 deputy heads of unit)
and one official from DG Tren (representing the trade-unions).
The interview was structured as follows:

• The Chair of the jury introduced the board and explained the structure of the interview
• I was given 5 minutes to present myself
• One member of the Jury asked me questions on environment policy (10 minutes)
• Another member of the jury asked me questions about general EU policy and policies in
other fields (10 minutes)
• Another asked me questions about my personality and opinions (10 minutes)
• The chair of the Jury asked me general questions in French (5 minutes)
The Jury was very friendly and informal.
Most of the questions were linked to what I had mentioned in my presentation/CV.

Some of the questions were as follows:
On Environment:
• Tell me about the issues relating to Environment and Transport and about the issue of
eco-points;
• Have their been any major changes recently regarding public procurement policy?
• What are the main changes to the EU’s chemical policy?
• What lead to the dioxin crisis in Belgium in 1999? Was there an infringement of EU rules?
• Is environment mentioned anywhere in the treaty apart from Articles 174, 175, 176?
On EU policy:
• Tell me about governance;
• What are the EU institutions?
• What is the role of the EEA?
• What is the role of the COR and ESC? Is the COR useful in the field of environment policy?
• What have been the main changes to the Common Agricultural policy over the past 10
years?
On personality:
• Do you think the institutions should continue working in 11 and soon 20 languages? I
responded that it would be preferable to reduce the number of languages so came the
follow-up questions: How will a farmer in the north of Finland know what is going on in the
EU if he can’t understand English or French? I responded that all written material should
ideally be translated but that it might be worth reducing the number of languages used in
meetings e.g. in the Parliament… then came another follow up question: Doesn’t this mean
that an ordinary citizen who can’t speak English or French won’t be able to become
MEP?….
• What do you think of the use of quotas in EU recruitment processes?
• How is the Commission perceived by citizens?
• What has been your greatest achievement?
• What are you strengths and weaknesses?
• How have you managed conflict in your professional life?
• Do you think that you could be faced with conflicts within the Commission?
In French:
• What I had learnt from some voluntary work that I did?
• What I liked about Brussels?
• Why I left my job as MEP’s assistant after only 1½ years

COMMISSION A8 Environment (December 2003) Candidate Failed
Arrived, chairperson introduced the panel briefly and explained the order of events. Panel of
five or six (not sure now, as there were one or two who didn't speak), plus secretary taking
notes. All questions directed at me in English, apart from a short section in my second
language (French) at the end. No interpreters and no microphone.
Very professional interview; they had clearly done research based on my application form, and
had some well-prepared questions. The panel were very good (with interesting people!), and
the interview was conducted more in the manner of a stimulating discussion than that of a
grilling (despite me not knowing the answers or being sketchy on quite a number of
questions/subjects). Questions were not fired at me from all corners; rather the interviewers
took turns to conduct one-to-one discussions with me on their own broad subject areas.
Starting off, as expected, I was asked to present myself. They seemed interested, which was a
good start.
Next I was asked detailed questions on the environment, by the first interviewer, starting with
questions on asbestos, a field related (somewhat) to the environment, in which I have worked
extensively, followed by waste, a field in which I have worked a little, followed by more
general technical questions on the environment.
The second interviewer then asked me about EC/EU institutions and processes. This I found
harder, without any direct experience of working in these institutions, however I answered as
best I could.
The chairperson then asked me more general questions on Europe and the environment,
especially with regard to enlargement - looking for awareness of the wider issues.
Then a section with a personnel-type interviewer, asking the usual things about motivation,
strengths and weaknesses, etc, often in a refreshing and clever way. All very good-natured
also.
Finally to the section in French, which was short and very general (more so than I expected),
relating to culture more than to the environment or the EU. Really it was just to get me
speaking and communicating in my second language.
Then, my chance to ask questions - I asked one, prepared, question relating to reseach in the
environment and how it links with administration, which I felt would show interest without
being too controversial.
And that was it... My best advice is to arrive and really engage with the panel, by which I
mean engage in a friendly and positive manner - by trying to let them know who you are, and
opening up and talking about things, whileat the same time following their cues. Try to relax
as much as possible. Though I was nervous (as everybody was) going in, it was overall a
rewarding
experience (and a bit of nerves helps to keep you on your toes). We now have until mid-March
(or thereabouts) to await the results...
COMMISSION A8 Environment (December 2003) Candidate Passed
I was of course very nervous before the interview began, but panel was very friendly and
made me feel quite relaxed. I believe the full panel was present (6 persons) plus one person
from EPSO.
I am bilingual English/Danish (my father is Danish) and fluent in French so had listed 1st
language as Danish and English as first foreign language. I had been told before the interview
that speaking in Danish - using the interpreters would be good at is would give critical time to

consider questions before answering. But I chose to disregard this advice, and asked as the
first thing if I could proceed in English and dispense with the
interpretation. The EPSO lady told me no, that I had to speak in first language as listed. So
proceeded to present my cv in Danish (a bit rusty in Danish) so was slightly problematic, as I
had rehearsed this 5 minute presentation in English, but went fine, no comments from panel.
As first thing, the panel chairperson outlined the order of activities for the interview:
1. Presentation of CV
2. Questions on environment
3. Questions on EU developments and general policy by the chairwoman,
4. Foreign language testing and additional questions.
1. Presentation of CV
Presenting cv went fine, though a bit stumbling, had to get used to the interpreting. All the
panel spoke French throughout, though only the chairwoman was a native French speaker. I
chose very quickly to remove the headset as listening directly in French was easier than
waiting for the translation. The interpreter gave me a nasty chock as as we started, by
interpreting into Japanese instead of Danish as a joke (Japanese is listed on my cv as basic
knowledge), which confused me rather, but was kindly meant.
2. Questions on environment
The questions on environment were relatively general - thank goodness, with some reference
to the Treaties and directives, and financial instruments, but not very technical. I was not sure
I answered them in-depth enough as they were so general, but they appeared to be satisfied.
The translation is a help, as it does allow the time to jot down a few words
without seeming awkward before answering. The questions were, as I recall them:
• What do the Treaties say about the environment? Outlined Art. 2 and 6
• Follow up - how about Article 74? Took a bit of a guess, and got it right I think
• How about waste, are there any directives on waste? Didn't know the specific one, but
outlined EU's goals regarding waste, and the mention of waste in the 6th Environment
Action Programme.
• Which instruments does the EU use regarding the environment in its relations with other
countries? Understood him to mean financial instruments, spoke about EDF and
environment and the environment and tropical forests budget lines. Mentioned my work
experience in DG Development appraising proposals for the environment and tropical
forests budget lines, and expanded answer in case he did not only mean financial
instruments (French), but means in general. Talked about the Country Strategy Papers and
Regional Strategy Papers as central policy instruments vis-a-vis third countries.
• He then asked about Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) as instruments of

policy? I mentioned the Conventions on Climate and Biodiversity.
• He followed up, not quite satisfied with my answer, whether there were any such
instruments aimed particularly at developing countries? I spoke of the decision by the
OECD members under the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes Convention to
ban exports to developing countries.
That was it I think. Overall they appeared to be impressed by my CV, and seemed to be
careful not to ask too specific questions, do not know why, but was very pleasant.
3. Questions on EU developments and general policy by the chairwoman,

• Chairman asked me about the 3 pillars establised by Maastricht? I explained -Which
element since moved? Imigration policy, mentioned Denmark's opt-out -Then to describe
the co-decision procedure? Think I got it more or less right.
• Explain Schengen Agreement?
• Then followed question from man on the left-hand side, following up on previous
questions.
• Denmark's particular situation in Schengen?
• Why would I like to work for the EU?
• Why interested in environment?
• What course would I choose if I were to study again? Had thought about this beforehand,
and said wasn't planning to study now, but if I did, I would study public administration at
ENA in Strasbourg.
• Why? Answered good reputation, went to secondary school in France, and would like to
improve my French.
• Pressed for more reasons? Said was sure it would help me in becoming Director-General
one day, had them all smile.
• Asked about Emissions Transfer schemes by new person, main advantages and
disadvantages? Outlined one of each.
4. Foreign language testing and additional questions.
For English as a foreign language had a general chat with a very nice man (native English
speaker), about our experiences in Lesotho. Not meant to topic specific, but I did mention the
topography of the place, and the problem of soil degradation. Apparantly he had gone to
school with the King of Lesotho, which was a funny coincidence. I was not tested in French or
any other foreign languages at all, but I think I demonstrated good skills, by not using
interpretation.
Finally I was asked for my questions to them? Asked if I successful, would I be restricted to
apply for jobs in DG Environment, could I for example apply to DG TREN? Had prepared this as
I knew two of panel were from TREN, was told that list was primarily for DG ENV, but would
also be circulated to other DGs.
Overall felt good, but will only know in mid-March if good enough. My feeling was they were
mostly concerned with quality of cv and ability to present and discuss issues in a convincing
manner. They did not appear to be very much into the facts. So main lesson, would be to
prepare a good cv, and a good presentation of it, and have a positive attitude no matter, if
able to answer questions precisely or not. The question on waste, I was not able to give him
what he asked, but they seemed very satisfied with my general answer; that I did know there
was such a directive, did not know its exact content, but EU's general policy on waste is:...
Section Two: I know when these were taken but not what the outcome was!
EPSO (November 2004) C English Language Secretary
Entered the building, said hello to gardien and told him that I had an interview – he asked to
see my convocation letter and the passport. He checked my name on a list and gave me a
visitor sticker. This is the only time they asked to see the letter and for identification.

I took the lift upstairs to the waiting room. The secretary came pretty quickly to get me.
Upon entering the room, I said Good Afternoon, and the Chairman welcomed me very loudly
and asked me to take a seat. He introduced the panel (three other women), and proceeded to
tell me how the interview would be conducted. He said that I would be asked to introduce
myself for 5 mins, and then I would be asked some questions by and English lady about my
secretarial skills, then a (Spanish lady I think) colleague would ask me questions on multi-
cultural working environments, and then finally questions on the institutions would be asked
(by an East European colleague I think- quite difficult to understand her English!), and then I
would have to speak in French.
I introduced myself giving a quick description of my studies, and then mainly talking about my
present job, and saying that in as far as I could see from the notice for this competition, I was
very well-suited for such a position inside the Institutions bla bla bla. I came to a conclusion
(quite quickly I think!), so I said Well that is basically all I have to say, but I’m not sure if that
was 5 mins. The Chairman smiled and said no, that’s fine, we are not really timing.
Secretarial skills:
What keyboard do you use?
Can you use the other type of keyboard?
How would you go about changing the keyboard setting in your computer?
Can you touch-type?
Do you have a paper filing system or an electronic filing system?
Do you think shorthand is important?
Do you work with a Dictaphone?
What computer software do you use?
Working environment:
Tell me about your current work environment in the ETUC?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of working in a multicultural environment?
What makes a good boss?
What would you do if you were offered a typist job in a pool in Luxembourg?
Institutions:
Which institution represents the national governments?
Which institution represents the people?
Which institution represents trade unions?
How many countries are in the euro zone? How many are not?
Who leads the CFSP? (I didn’t know this!)
No questions about what I thought about EU policy/Turkey or anything like that!
Then, the Irish Chairman proceeded to test my French. He asked me differences between
Lyon and Brussels, and what I liked about France.
He stopped me quite quickly when (I hope) it was obvious that my level of French was quite
adequate.
Then he told me it was the end of the interview. Did I have any questions? I laughed and
said that I would like to know when I would know the results like everyone else. By that time
there was quite a good atmosphere in the (rather small) room, and everyone was quite
relaxed. He explained what would happen next – results end of March and that I should
lobby, although that I would also have job offers if I were successful.
All in all, they were friendly but quite professional. They moved quickly between questions,
and this made me also answer quite quickly. They never actually asked me why I would like to
work for the institutions, although the Chairman said that they would in the introduction! At
one point I was asked for the disadvantages and the advantages of something, and had only
responded about the disadvantages, when the lady started moving on to the next question, so
I just said sorry, I would like to mention the advantages….

Fastest half an hour of my life!
Section Three: Unfortunately I do not know when these were taken or what the
outcome was!
COMMISSION A8
The interview was with four Commission officials. They did not introduce themselves, but there
were two Britons (including the Chairman), a Spaniard (my second language) and a
Frenchman. There were no interpretation facilities and the interview took place round a table.
The format was for one of them to ask a rather general question, to which they expected a full
and considered reply. They would then follow up with further questions on the subject, often
picking up inconsistencies, generalities or flaws in my first answer. Questioning was not
inquisitorial, though neither was it particularly friendly. The interview lasted about 45 minutes
of which about 25 minutes were in English, 15 minutes in Spanish (unusually long) and five
minutes in French.
I was asked the following questions:
In English
A. Give a resume of your CV, particularly what you have been doing since filling in the
application form 18 months ago.
B. Picking up on points in my CV:
(i) What is the US position in the GATT agriculture negotiations and can it be justified?
(ii) What about non-agricultural sectors like services?
C. Is the Single Market complete?
In Spanish
D. How does the Community go about making laws (pre and post Maastricht)?
E. What powers does the European Parliament have?
In French
F. Why do you want to work in the Commission?
In English
G. A couple of questions about my hobbies and interests.
H. An opportunity for me to ask questions.
All in all, the interview was not as daunting as I had thought it would be.
COMMISSION A8
The panel consisted of four people, who did not introduce themselves to me, so I shall call
them 1, 2, 3 and 4. 1 was a German/Dutch woman who spoke to me in English, age c30; 2
was an English/Dutch woman who spoke to me in English, age c35; 3 was a French/Belgian
woman speaking French, c45; and 4 was a Portuguese/Spanish man speaking French, c40.
None of them seemed very conscious of their dignity or very experienced. All were quite
friendly. It was obvious that the questions and their sequence had been planned in advance,
and seemed to take little account of either my CV or answers to previous questions. Several
times, what I had said earlier was forgotten, and I had to remind them. I put this down to
nervousness on their part. Interpretation from French into English was available in the first
part of the interview, but I did not use this.
Number 2 was the chairman. She told me this, said that they would ask me to introduce
myself, then ask me some general questions, followed by EC questions, and finally questions in
French and German. This was what happened. I was asked the following questions, in the
following order, as far as I can remember. The interview took 40 minutes. Until the final
section, I answered the questions in English regardless of the language they were asked in.
Q1 (Interviewer 2, in English): Could you introduce yourself to us in four or five minutes?
I spoke about my job, asked if they wanted anything more, and was told to expand a bit more
on my interests, which I did.
Q2: What do you think is the future of the monarchy in Britain?
Q3 (Interviewer 3, in French): Is there a European culture? Can Turkey be included within
such a concept?
Q4 (Interviewer 4, in French): Do you think Islam can be included as part of European culture?
Q5: How did the Bosnian Muslims get there?
Q6: Name the common policies of the Community established by the Treaty of Rome.
I said agriculture, transport and regions, but thought this was incomplete.
Q7: Which of these failed to be achieved?
Q8 (Interviewer 3, in French): What common policies were added by the SEA?
Q9 (Interviewer 2, in English): You've forgotten environment, can you tell us what the
Community's policy on that is?
Q9a: Where was international conference on environment?
Q10 (interviewer 3, in French): Can you tell us about the Common Fisheries Policy? Pursued
with a few supplementaries about how the quota system worked and how the environmental
damage could be controlled.
Q11 (Interviewer 1, in English): You also forgot to mention the Common Commercial Policy.
Can you tell us how this operates? What permanent group exists to discuss this?
Q11a: How does the Community negotiate a commercial agreement with an outside body?
What agreements exist with groups of countries?
Q11b: What else is contained in the Lomé Agreement?
Q11c: Can you name the resources of the Community budget?
FRENCH SECTION (i.e. all questions and answers in French)
Q12 (Interviewer 4): I see that you worked as a stagiaire in Eurostat in the area of social
protection. Is there a common policy on social protection?
Q13: Can you tell us about any legislation which does exist in that area and, in the context of
libre circulation, what provisions are made for social protection?
Q14: Why do you think there is no common policy?
Q15 (Interviewer 2): I see that you work on Latin America. This year is the year of indigenous
peoples. What problems are faced by indigenous peoples in Latin America?
No I don't: already told you I work on the Mediterranean. (Forgot word for disease and said it
in English, but nobody seemed to mind). Supplementaries on land problem and rain forest.
Q16 (Interviewer 1): Apart from indigenous humans or animals, why else is destruction of rain
forests bad?
GERMAN SECTION
Q17 (Interviewer 1): Can I ask you some questions in German? Where did you learn German?
Have you not travelled in Germany?
END
Interviewer 3, in French: Thanks very much, good journey back. You'll know the result end
May/early June.
I'm pretty sure I've got more or less the entire interview there. It was obviously quite
knowledge-based, but I'm not sure how much my frequent ignorance counted against me. It
didn't seem to disappoint the panel too much. I was at least able to say something in response
to every question. The second language test in German was really simple. I don't think they
were expecting much, and my O-level standard was quite sufficient. (Ed: "A" Level is usually
the minimum standard.)
It is also worth recording that the interview took place in a room designed for a conference
with interpretation. There was therefore a wide gap between me and the panel, and I was
obliged to press a button on my microphone every time I wanted to speak, for the benefit of
the interpreters in their glass-fronted booth at the end of the room. This did not bother me,
since I have attended several meetings with that format, but it might be disconcerting, if you
were not used to it.
Thinking about the interview some more, while I hope that my inability to answer all the
questions fully did not count against me, I cannot help thinking that it would be an advantage
to be able to do so.
The following interviews took place several years ago. Then, candidates were given
a choice of topics just before the interview and asked to speak on one of these
subjects at the beginning of the interview.
COMMISSION A8
The Panel: 1 British (Chairman), 1 Spanish, 1 Unknown.

Length: 35 minutes.
Presentation

I chose "Agriculture" as the topic for my five minute presentation, a subject I felt reasonably
confident with. My answer focused on CAP. As I uttered "and finally" I was told to stop. My five
minutes were up and I was not going to be allowed to utter my concluding sentence. The
importance of finishing within the allotted time could be stressed to future candidates.
For the next ten minutes I was asked questions about my presentation. They were not general
questions about agriculture but specific questions on my presentation, asking me to justify
what I had said. Much to my surprise, I found myself defending CAP from the Chairman's
onslaught. I am not sure if this was taking the "I must be pro-European approach" a little far.
However, while I had to acknowledge that there was a grain of truth in what he said, at least I
stuck to my guns.
General Questions
"What do you know about Co-operation in Home Affairs?" "What do you know about
Schengen?" "What factors lie behind the limited progress made in implementing Schengen?"
"What was the objective reason that stopped Denmark signing Schengen?"
"Name the EU's common policies".
"What do you know about the Committee of the Regions?" "Which other body is consulted in
the legislative process?" (In response to the latter question, having talked about the Economic
and Social Committee, I mentioned the European Parliament. I was promptly told that the
Parliament is an institution and not a body).
Languages
The interpreters were redundant during the entire interview. English was used throughout the
general interview and they had gone home by the time we reached the language section. The
French speaker was roused from his slumber to mutter some fairly unintelligible French about
Chernobyl and what the EU could do to help with nuclear safety in Central and eastern Europe.
My French is not fluent, but my usually reasonable powers of comprehension were stretched to
the limit by his muffled accent.
After the Chairman had thanked me for coming, I reminded him that I also spoke a little
Spanish. Having spent the previous couple of weeks fastidiously preparing a few set sentences,
I was determined to show this off, particularly as I felt the French had not gone well. The
Spanish lady duly obliged, and as if reading from a script, asked me my prepared questions on
the year I spent in Madrid. A pleasant way to finish. The one-to-one Spanish lessons I had
arranged immediately before the interview were exceedingly useful in this respect and may be
something worth encouraging others to do in future.
COMMISSION A8
I chose three cards from a fairly large pile and had five minutes to prepare the initial
presentation. The cards I selected were "subsidiarity", "immigration" and something else pretty
specialised, which I immediately dismissed and can no longer remember. This was quite a
lucky choice because I had worked a lot on subsidiarity and written my essay in the second
stage of the concours on immigration. I gave my presentation on subsidiarity and this was
probably wise because, although I could argue in general terms about immigration, the jury
followed up the presentation with some fairly detailed questions about the topic. It is probably
safer to go for topics where your knowledge of Community policies is strongest, even if they
are dull. I took care when giving my presentation to mentally disinfect myself of any UK slant
on subsidiarity, arguing in essence that is was a common-sense political principle which had
been in existence since time began (i.e. 1957).
There were four members on the jury: a woman who I think was Belgian, a Dutchman, a
Frenchman and a German man. The Chairwoman introduced them and they had nameplates,
though I don't think she said which DGs they were from. The jury was matter-of-fact about the
whole business, but not unfriendly. I recognised one member as being from DG Transport, so I
had an idea of what sort of questions he might ask. As a follow-up to the presentation I was
asked for my thoughts on harmonising driver blood-alcohol limits in relation to subsidiarity.
Again, I had to be careful not to reel off the UK line on this, and tried to give an answer from a
Commission point of view. The questioning on this matter was quite persistent, but I did not
feel that any attempt was being made to see what happened when I reached the limits of my
knowledge.

When giving examples of a particular problem, I think it is better, if you can, to try to mention
examples where you know a little. This sounds obvious, but it is easy in the heat of the
moment to try to reel off as many examples of some topic or problem in order to sound
knowledgeable and my jury sometimes picked up on the examples I gave to invite me to
elaborate further. After all, it is easier for the jury to do this than to ask further questions.
After the various follow-up questions to the presentation, I was asked (in relation to my CV,
because I had studied and taught history) whether I thought it was possible to have a
common history textbook for European schools. This was clearly a standard question in the
repertoire of juries. I argued that it was possible. I was then asked why I wanted to work for
the Commission and which two services I would most prefer to work in (apparently the last bit
is taken down and used as evidence against you if you pass). I was also asked what I thought
the main differences were between working for a national administration and working for the
Commission.
As explained at the beginning of the interview, I was told when the language part of the test
was beginning. The German member asked me about my time in Germany and links between
Stuttgart and Wales. My answers were rambling but fairly fluent. I had the impression that the
jury concentrated on my language ability at this point, rather than the content of my answers.
This impression was reinforced when I was asked in French how I thought the Community
could harmonise VAT rates. I tried to answer this, but got it completely wrong, whereupon I
confessed that I had not thought about this problem and had no idea what the answer was.
This did not seem to count against me.
Until the language test began, all jury members except the Frenchman used English. I used
the headphones when the Frenchman spoke (he was using the interpretation service
throughout the interview) because I did not want to take any risks with my poor French and it
had been made clear to me that the language part of the test was separate. The functioning of
the microphone etc was explained to me at the beginning, though I still forgot to use it the
first time I spoke. I did not find using the microphone off-putting or intimidating. I think it is
actually helpful, since it provides the comforting illusion that one's words are coherent and
important.
It is worth bearing in mind that jury members seem to interview about eight or ten candidates
a day, and can get pretty jaded. It is important to be cheerful and friendly yourself, especially
at times of day when the jury might be tired.
COMMISSION A7
I was told to go to a room where two other candidates were waiting for their interviews, and
asked to fill in a form to express a preference as to where I would like to work, if I was
successful.
I had to wait while the other candidates were called - one in German, the other in Italian -
before, half an hour behind schedule, I was shown into another room, where I had to draw a
card from each of three large piles. From the topics I had chosen, I was to select one to speak
on for five minutes.
Not long after, I was ushered into a room with the five-member panel seated the other side of
a very large table. I had to use a microphone to reply to the questions, as there was
interpretation throughout the interview.
I had selected third world aid as the topic for the presentation - least bad option from a
selection including aircraft deregulation and social exclusion. I did not check whether I had
spoken for more than five minutes, but I was allowed to finish.
I was asked in French four questions of increasing difficulty and technicality on the nature,
administration, targeting and budgetary control mechanisms of assistance programmes.
Admission of ignorance did not result in a change of tack or subject area.
I was then asked about the nature of the work I had done on Central and Eastern Europe. This
was used as a lead into a consideration of enlargement to include the Visegrad countries. I
was then asked what the main problems were in relation to Poland.

I was then asked what I had found were the main cultural differences between living in the UK
and in Sweden. The questioner was Danish, and seemed amused at some of the points I
mentioned.
I was also asked about EU citizenship and its impact on people's consciousness. I managed to
bring in turnout for European Parliament elections.
The last questions to which I was to answer in English were on what constituted a good team
leader. The follow-up question was how could you know if someone was a good team leader if
you had never met them, and, by implication, did not have access to any appraisal reports or
references.
I was then asked to answer in French about an industrial relations problem I did not really
follow. Then by a different panel member what were the main changes to VAT on transfrontier
movements of goods in the wake of the coming into force of the Single Market.
The questions in both German and Swedish were very straightforward - why did I pick German
rather than French as my first Community language, and why had I decided to work in
Gothenburg?
I found it hard to gauge how well I had done. It was obvious when I knew what I was talking
about and when I was not. Only once did I feel that they kept on asking questions about
something where I had nothing intelligent to say and overall I felt that at least three of the
panel members were sympathetic to my plight, and tried to put me at my ease.
COMMISSION A7 (ECONOMIST)
The most surprising aspect of the interview was the huge number of extremely obvious
questions that were not asked. Almost no attempt was made to assess my personal
motivations, competence as an economist or knowledge of and views on current affairs.
I was not asked why I wanted to work in the EC (even though the chairman said in his
introduction that he would ask about this), why they should give me a job in the Commission,
or what I had done since I sent in the application form. Nor was I asked any technical
economic questions that strayed beyond the job I had described in my original application,
even though I applied as an economist. What should the EU do about its trade deficit with
Japan? Tell me about the White Paper on competitiveness. Compare and contrast it with the
UK's own competitiveness White Paper.
Nor was there anything on EC or general current affairs, despite the number of meaty topics
that had hit the headlines in the days before the interview: Northern Ireland; abortion (given
the row at the population conference in Cairo); the new Commission; plans for the forthcoming
IGC and so on.
I also felt I had almost no chance to show my breadth of knowledge, outside interests or
ability to cope with pressure. On that last point, I did not feel that I was being hassled or
intimidated. Perhaps this is in the very nature of interviews that use simultaneous translation
(which I found so off-putting that I tried to dispense with it altogether), with the microphones
and the delay between the original question and answer.
I had heard horror stories about members of the panel falling asleep or walking in and out
during the interview in perhaps deliberate attempts to put people off. The 6/7-member panel I
faced could not have been more charming. That in itself is somewhat disconcerting. They all
appeared interested in my replies, and I tried to involve them all, mainly by eye contact. This
was quite hard given that the panel members at either end were quite far away from me. The
only woman on the panel did not speak. Luckily, perhaps. She gave others I know a hard time.
Given that there was a presentation, it was fortunate that I arrived early. I was given five
minutes to prepare the five-minute presentation which would be given right at the start of the
interview. The selection of presentation topic was generated randomly: three piles of about
twenty cards each were placed face down in front of me. Each card had a single topic printed
on it. I was told to choose one card from each pile. Once I had done that, I was allowed to
turn the cards face up and choose any one topic for the presentation. I chose to talk on the
environment; the other options were trade and commodity exchanges, and insurance.
The five minutes preparation time appeared to last only about a minute and a half. I barely
had enough time to jot down two or three lines of an introduction. I certainly hadn't worked
out even a vague structure before I was summoned into the interview room.
The chairman, flanked by six or seven other officials, each with cards in front of them printed
with their names but not their place of work, began by complimenting me on reaching the
interview stage and set out in vague terms what they were looking for. Phrases such as
"convincing", "competent", "desire to work in the Commission" and "ability to cope with a
multicultural environment" swam around in my head. I wasn't concentrating too hard; instead
I was trying to think of something to say about the environment. The glow of pleasure at the
compliments did, however, remain with me for as long as it took to discover that other people
interviewed that day had been told the same thing. Oh well.
I launched into my presentation, tripping over sentences and burbling out incoherent ideas. I
still had no conclusion ready, nor did I know how long five minutes would last - I had no watch
and I couldn't see a clock in the room. So after a certain point, I just stopped talking. After a
delay that seemed to last a further five minutes I came up with a feeble conclusion and
muttered "Thank you". The chairman then said: "Is that it?" That made me feel a lot better!
There followed a series of six questions in a row on the carbon tax and CO2 emissions, an
issue I had raised in my talk, from a rather large Dane(?). He clearly knew rather more than I
did about various forms of energy. If countries are worried about CO2 emissions, why don't
they just use nuclear power? and so on.
The chairman then brought in the other members of the panel. Several asked questions on
trade, relating to the job I had described as my current work in the application form, sent in
twelve months previously. Tell me about your research into the UK's trade performance. How
did you go about your analysis? Did you add value to this work?
One member of the panel asked a complicated question about trade and the environment. I
couldn't understand what he was getting at. Having asked him several times to clarify, I
eventually became so embarrassed that I decided simply to answer as best I could the
question I thought he had asked. I ended somewhat hesitantly with: "but I'm not quite sure
that is what you meant". He said it wasn't, but did add - with a broad grin on his face - that he
had been extremely pleased to hear me refer to a DG Enterprise paper in my answer. The rest
of the panel laughed (thirty seconds later). I guessed that he was from DG Enterprise.
I think that it was at about this point that we moved onto the informal test of my language
ability. We had three to get through and I seem to remember there being two questions in
French (advantages and disadvantages of working in a multicultural environment and the one
about added value), one in Italian (who is your favourite author and why?) and one in German
(which heritage sites would you preserve in the UK?) I gave rather soggy responses to all
these questions. The interview ended. I stumbled out and went straight to a pub, where I did
the same thing (an hour later).
Overall, I felt that I had given an average performance. I had certainly not set the world on
fire.
COMMISSION A7 (LAWYER)
The interview began about 15 minutes late. I was first of all taken by an official into a side
room where I was presented with three packs of cards from each of which I had to choose one
card. Each card had a topic written on it. I was asked to choose one of the three topics on
which to give my five-minute presentation. My topics were: "Culture", "Agriculture" and
something along the lines of "The removal of technical barriers to trade in goods between
Member States". Although I was given five minutes to prepare my chosen topic, I had only a
few seconds actually to make the choice, since the official was standing at my shoulder waiting
for my decision. Consequently, I was instinctively put off by the length and apparently
technical nature of the third topic (whose meaning was less immediately apparent than the
other two) and so chose the second, even though it was by no means my type of subject.
Almost immediately I had done so I realised I had made a mistake and should have chosen the
lengthy question, whose real meaning had now sunk in and which I probably knew slightly
more about. Afterwards I wondered whether the Commission had deliberately offered to all
candidates a choice of two short questions and one long, as a test of the candidate to
assimilate quickly the meaning of the longer question and formulate a response. Whether this
is post-competition paranoia or not I do know.
There were four or five members on the interviewing panel (it felt like a lot more). They did
not introduce themselves, but it transpired that two were English. I was asked first to give a
brief explanation of my professional qualifications and experience. I was not asked to give a
more general introduction of myself. Some questions were asked about my reasons for
changing my previous career path (as a City solicitor).
I was then asked to give my five minute presentation on agriculture, in which I was entirely
dependant upon a very helpful handout on the CAP reforms I had been given on a course and
which I had reread a few days previously. The problems really began in the follow-up
questions after my presentation was over, in which I was asked a technical question about the
CAP which I simply did not know the answer to. A painful few minutes followed in which one of
the panel (a German) tried to coax the right answers out of me by giving me hints and trying
to lead me in the right direction, without any success. In the end he virtually had to tell me the
answer himself. It all hinged on the fact (of which I was ignorant) that the base product by
reference to which the prices of all other agricultural products had originally been fixed (at the
insistence of the Germans) was cereals, and that this had somehow driven up the CAP prices
across the board.
Discussions then turned to questions on my own area of legal experience (competition law), on
which fortunately I had slightly greater knowledge. This led on to the Barber judgement and
the Barber Protocol to the Maastricht Treaty, on which I was asked a specific question (in
French, and which I felt I ought to answer in French) about its legal status.
The interview was very much focused on legal issues and my legal experience, and there was
no general discussion about my attitudes to the Community, my personal interests or hobbies,
or my family background. The panel were polite and not aggressive, although they were
persistent in pursuing questions even when it was apparent that I did not know the answer.
They did not test me at all on my third language (Italian).
PARLIAMENT A7
I am drafting this over a cake and an espresso in the EP canteen. It may be handy for future
interrogands if I were to set out the gory details.
Practical Details
The interviews were spaced throughout the day at hourly intervals, with a group exercise
involving all that day's interviewees at the end of the day. The tests were held in one of the EP
buildings in Luxembourg. A member of the administrative staff was on hand to welcome
candidates and deal with expense claims etc. There were seven people on the interviewing
panel, of whom only two were women. The chairperson was German, and the others Irish or
British. They were all friendly and non-confrontational. The interview was held in a modest
meeting room and the panel were seated in an L-shape, with my desk as the hypotenuse of
the triangle.
Content - Interview
It was absolutely clear that the purpose of the interview was not to test knowledge. Rather,
the panel was looking for clarity of thought and powers of expression. On the (rare) occasions
when we touched on a subject about which I knew an awful lot, I did not get the feeling that
they were deeply impressed. Equally, when we discussed topics about which I knew little, I did
not feel that I was marked down on that count alone. My impression was borne out by others
interviewed the same day. No one on the group was asked narrowly factual questions about
treaty articles, GDP figures, numbers of MEPs for Belgium or anything like that. Most of the
discussion related either to CVs or the essays that we had written.
My interview fell into four parts:
(i) Warm-up questions from the chairperson on CV-related topics;

(ii) Specific follow-up to my essay;
(iii) Questions of a more general nature following on from the essay discussion;
(iv) Questions in French on my CV and on my motivation.
I was given an opportunity to ask questions at the end.
The warm-up questions from the chairperson were:
(a) I see that you work at the EBRD. Can you explain why the EBRD has got off to such a slow
start in its lending in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union?
(b) You have worked in Africa and you studied theology. Can you explain how European and
African attitudes to the relationship between the sacred and the secular differ, why this is and
whether we have anything to learn from this difference?
The first was pretty predictable, but the second came somewhat out of the blue and was a
killer. The lesson - the more detailed your CV/application form is, the greater the danger that
obscure aspects of it will return to haunt you. I have given no thought to African religion for
six years or more; it was a peculiarly complex question and a somewhat odd perspective.
The questioning was now thrown open to other members of the panel. Photocopies of my
essay were much in evidence and the subsequent questions stemmed from it (the essay, that
is):
(a) You mentioned in your essay that development co-operation policy found itself in a
separate pillar from CFSP. Drawing on your experience in Uganda, would you like to say how
you see development co-operation policy developing in the years ahead?
This was a gift question - I can say in absolute truth that, during the UK Presidency, I wrote
the Community's Development Co-operation policy for the next decade - or at least I held the
pen. However, I became far too enthusiastic and was stopped in mid-peroration by the
chairman. The lesson - even if given a gift question, remember that you will need to reach the
end of your answer in less than three hours. "Nineteenthly" is discouraging for an interviewing
panel to hear.
Unfortunately another member of the panel turned out to be a development co-operation
expert and, after my initial response, starting quizzing me about UNDP poverty indicators and
other such things.
The next question took a different turn:
(b) You said in your essay that the EP plays a marginal role in development co-operation.
Would you like to expand on that?
Lessons - number one: don't write, say or think that the EU institution that you would gladly
give your right arm to work for is anything other than at the pulsating heart of the Universe.
Number two: try to remember what you have written in any essay that you write in early
rounds. I had more or less forgotten everything about it, and so quotes from it came as a
surprise.
(c) You said that the current institutional arrangements for CFSP were too weak to enable it to
develop properly. How do you think that this might change at the next IGC?
This was pretty predictable and I was able to talk fairly coherently as well as putting a good
deal of emphasis on the future role of the EP.
Following on from my answers to the above, we then moved away from my essay into more
general questions on the Union.
(a) You mentioned enlargement as a factor which will influence the development of CFSP. How
do you think that the Union will deal with the issue of neutrality during the current
enlargement negotiations?
(b) The British opt-out from the social chapter is something of an innovation in the way that
Community treaties are negotiated. How do you see this tactic being used in future
enlargements?
Both of these were pretty standard questions which one might have expected. The key, I
think, is to give a structured and coherent answer which shows awareness of the issues, rather
than demonstrating an encyclopaedic knowledge of the facts. Whether I did this, however, is
doubtful.
We then moved seamlessly into French. The questions were pretty gentle:
(a) Tell us a little about your musical activities since you left university.
This was predictable, as I read music at university and have it down in the "interests/activities"
section of my CV. However, because I had thought that the questions would be more along
the lines of "What is article 27a(3) of the Treaty and why?", I perhaps hadn't prepared the
vocabulary as thoroughly as I ought.
(b) To return to matters theological, can you tell us a little about the phenomenon of worker-
priests and you views on this?
This was from the chairperson who was clearly a religious zealot. There was no way I could
have foreseen this. I did get appreciative smiles, however, when I linked my answer back to
what I said in a earlier response.
(c) You have put literature down as one of your interests. How do you explain the prominence
in English literature that has been achieved by writers from developing countries in the last
couple of years?
Lesson - do not put "literature" down as an interest unless you are able to answer questions
about any field from Chaucer to Barbara Cartland. Instead, say that your interest is the 18th
century Lithuanian novella. Fortunately, I wasn't entirely ignorant about what I'd been asked,
but I might have been.
(d) Why do you want to work for the European Parliament?
I thought that this was a bit below the belt. Nevertheless, as by this time my face was
contorted into a mask of deep anguish because of the strain of having to speak French very
badly indeed for a considerable stretch, I was able to give my prepared reply without smirking.
(e) You seem to have done quite a few different jobs in the past two years. Are they all
connected to this "European Fast Stream" scheme?
This is a fair question. Given that I have moved from the ODA to the EBRD and the
Commission in pretty quick succession, it's as well to have been given the opportunity to
explain that there is a coherence and logic to my career development, and that underlying it all
is my passionate desire to work in a European institutions and the Parliament in particular.
The interview concluded with a brief return to English and an invitation to put my own
questions. On the whole, I had the impression that the interview was less interrogatory than
those done by the Commission. Certainly, I didn't feel at any stage that they were doing
anything other than giving me the opportunity to show what I could do. There was no attempt
to trip me up or catch me out, and the atmosphere was very positive.
The day ended with the group exercise, which I shall record only briefly, as it does not seem to
figure in the Commission's concours. The day's seven interviewees were gathered together and
given 45 minutes to perform a task. In this case, the task was, as a preparatory committee of
civil servants, to design a work programme for a Parliamentary Committee of Enquiry, who
wished to address the topic of the influence on children of violence on TV. Six elements to be
covered by our discussions were set out in a briefing paper, which we had five minutes to read
before launching into debate.
I am convinced that the point of these exercises is to see how well you can work as one of a
group. The point is not to dominate (we were instructed not to appoint a chairperson) or
demonstrate superior knowledge, but to show that you know how to listen as well as to speak.
It is essentially collaborative and, if approached in a competitive spirit, will end in tears - as
ours did. I understand that a group the day before had the same exercise and approached it in
- as we are fond of saying - a spirit of solidarity, with good results. Our group included one
member, who was determined to show off, with the result that there was a certain amount of
friction, the task did not get completed and the performance of all the rest of the members of
the group must have suffered in consequence.

Oral Exam Hints - UK Cabinet Office

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Oral Exam Hints - UK Cabinet Office

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

HOW TO PASS

Supplement to A CANDIDATE’S GUIDE

Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

The interview will also focus on:

a) your specialised knowledge in your chosen field

Format of the Interview

Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

• Ask for clarification if you are unsure of the question.

Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

• Avoid rambling or going off at a tangent.

• The jury will remember two parts of your answer in particular:

• As you leave, thank the interpreter(s).

Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

COURT/COMMISSION/COUNCIL/PARLIAMENT (November 2004) LA7/6 Lawyer-

The interview was structured as follows:

The panel was very professional, friendly, informal and encouraging.

I received the results within one week.

I indicated my order of preference as follows:

ENLARGEMENT CONCOURS FOR NATIONALS OF NEW EU MEMBER STATES A8

Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

• Is the word "pillar" included in the Treaties?

• What are the responsibilities of the Commission in each pillar?

• What is the Lisbon Strategy?

• What is the Stability Pact?

The strategy that I could suggest to each candidate is as follows:

• have your presentation well-prepared

• look smart and be yourself

ENLARGEMENT CONCOURS FOR NATIONALS OF NEW EU MEMBER STATES A8

The questions went like this:

Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

Afterwards, I was asked the following question:

The 3rd member of the panel asked what I knew about:

- The EU's social and regional policies (objectives and goals),

COMMISSION A8 Agriculture (March 2004) Candidate passed

Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

The President said my interview had finished.

COMMISSION A7/A6 Research (March 2004) Candidate Passed

The questioning moved to Wolfram Schrimpf:

The questioning moved to the chairman, who asked questions of EU integration:

The questioning moved to the language assessor, in Italian:

Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

COMMISSION A7/A6 Research (March 2004) Candidate Failed

Introduce yourself in 5 mins

Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

COMMISSION B5/B4 Documentation/Library (March 2004) Candidate passed

There were no questions on hobbies or on personal strengths and weaknesses.

Translator LA6/LA7 (March 2004) Candidate passed

Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

ENLARGEMENT CONCOURS FOR NATIONALS OF NEW EU MEMBER STATES A8 LAW

a. General rules: Plaumann and Cordoniu cases

2. Human rights in EU law

a. General place of HR in EU law

a. “Failure to act” action (art. 232 TEC):

Interview Guidance Oct 03 V.3

c. State aid in EU law

d. What are the community own resources?

5. Questions on “multicultural sensibility”

Plus, in the very beginning: could you comment on your CV??

COMMISSION A7/A6 Research – Sustainable Development (January 2004)

1. Talk about your CV in 5-7 minutes