Facts
[A.] (PD Dr.) applied for a professorship position at the University of Bern in response to a job advertisement. According to the notification from the Faculty Selection Committee dated October 6, 2014, she was one of the six candidates considered for the position. On November 21, 2014, she was able to give a trial lecture. However, in an email dated November 27, 2014, the chairperson of the Selection Committee informed her that she was not among the applicants recommended to the University Management for appointment ("shortlist").
[A.] then filed a complaint with the Appeals Commission of the University of Bern, which did not grant her request for a temporary suspension of the appointment procedure. Her requests for the issuance of an appealable decision were rejected by the General Secretariat of the University of Bern on April 21, 2015. On April 27, 2015, the University of Bern concluded the employment contract with the selected candidate.
[A.] filed a complaint of denial of justice with the Directorate of Education of the Canton of Bern, which was dismissed on April 26, 2016. [A.] filed separate appeals with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern against the non-consideration decision of the university's Appeals Commission and the dismissal of her complaint of denial of justice by the Directorate of Education.
Considerations
The FSCA examined whether the Administrative Court had committed a violation of the law within the meaning of Art. 95 FSCA, insofar as it denied the applicant's claim for the issuance of a decision or a legitimate interest in the judicial clarification of this issue regarding her non-appointment or non-inclusion in the "shortlist".
The FSCA concluded that the cantonal court did not violate the guarantee of access to the courts under Art. 29a Cst. Although the legal protection in a "distribution procedure" like the present one may be perceived as ineffective if rejected applicants no longer have a…