The background to the complaint

1. The present case concerns the alleged violation of the principle of equal treatment of candidates in Open Competition EPSO/AST/111/10-EN for assistants in the secretarial field (the competition).[1]

2. In May 2011, the complainant took part in the assessment centre tests which were organised in the framework of the competition. These tests consisted of a structured interview (test a); an in-tray exercise (test b); a practical test involving the preparation and/or processing of an MS Word document (test c); and a practical test to assess the candidates' drafting skills (test d). During the complainant's practical word-processing test (test c), a technical problem occurred on the computer network, which made it impossible for him to complete the exercise and sit test d). Nevertheless, in the afternoon of the same day, he attended his structured interview as originally planned.

3. The day after the technical problem occurred, EPSO apologised and informed the complainant that all candidates affected by that problem would be invited to re-sit test c) and, at the same time, to sit practical test d).  On 16 June 2011 the complainant re-sat practical test c) and sat test d).

4. In August 2011, EPSO informed the complainant that he was not among the successful candidates who had been placed on the reserve list. On 9 August 2011, the complainant asked EPSO for a review of, among other things, his practical word-processing test. He also pointed out that (i) his final score in the structured interview, which took place immediately after the technical problem had occurred, was only 2 points lower than the threshold, and (ii) his result had been affected by the way EPSO had handled the technical problem. In particular, by not informing him of the possibility of re-sitting the test and by not rescheduling the structured interview, EPSO caused him to experience an increased amount of stress.

5. In the exchange of correspondence that followed, EPSO provided a detailed explanation of the criteria used to assess test c) and the structured interview, but confirmed its decision.

6. On 19 January 2012, the complaint lodged a complainant with the European Ombudsman.

The subject matter of the inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the following allegation and claim:

Allegation

EPSO failed to treat the candidates who participated in Open Competition EPSO/AST/111/10-EN equally.

Claim

EPSO should allow the complainant to re-sit his structured interview or it should reassess his performance by taking into account the circumstances of his case.

The inquiry

8. On 27 February 2012, the Ombudsman requested EPSO to submit an opinion on the complainant's allegation and claim. EPSO's opinion was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to make observations by 30 June 2012. The complainant did not submit any observations.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. Allegation that EPSO failed to treat candidates equally

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

9. In his complaint, the complainant alleged that EPSO failed to treat equally the candidates who participated in Open Competition EPSO/AST/111/10-EN. In particular, he pointed out that the technical problem that occurred during his practical test c) caused him an increased amount of stress for the rest of the day and therefore affected his performance in the structured interview in the afternoon. He therefore argued that, by not informing him on the spot of the possibility of re-sitting practical test c) and by not rescheduling his structured interview, EPSO failed properly to handle the situation which arose as a result of the technical problem.

10. In its opinion, EPSO first pointed out that the technical problem was the result of a serious technical fault in the Commission's central computer hub which had an impact across many services of the institutions. The incident therefore was not caused by EPSO. Nevertheless, EPSO apologised for the inconvenience to all candidates affected by the incident. It also emphasised that it had immediately informed all candidates about what had happened and about the fact that they would receive further information shortly. In line with this commitment, EPSO informed candidates the day after the incident, via their EPSO accounts, that they could re-sit the tests directly affected by the problem, that is, test c) and test d). EPSO added that it failed to see how not informing candidates on the spot and not postponing the complainant's interview could have infringed the principle of equal treatment. It pointed out that it had informed all candidates within an exceptionally short period of time.

11. EPSO acknowledged that many candidates are subject to a great deal of stress before and during their tests. It added that it could not, however, be considered responsible for that stress, and that it could not measure each individual candidate's level of stress and adjust its proceedings accordingly. As to the complainant's specific situation, EPSO pointed out that the technical problem occurred at 11:20 a.m. and that the complainant sat the structured interview in the course of the afternoon. EPSO therefore considered that the complainant had sufficient time to "deal with the additional stress he alleges to have experienced for the rest of the day".

12. Finally EPSO stressed that the complainant requested to be allowed to repeat his structured interview only after receiving his marks and his competency passport in August 2011. According to EPSO, if the complainant had really felt that the incident had affected his performance at the structured interview, he could and should have requested to be allowed to re-sit it immediately after having been informed of EPSO's decision to reschedule tests c) and d) only.

13. The complainant did not submit any observations on EPSO's opinion.

The Ombudsman's assessment

14. The Ombudsman points out that, when organising and managing a competition, EPSO has to comply with the principles of good administration. Among those, the principle of equality in the treatment of candidates is of crucial importance. The institutions can select and recruit the best possible professionals only if everyone is given an equal chance to prove their competence.

15. The Ombudsman also emphasises that the principle of equality of treatment plays a special role when an event occurs which affects the regular conduct of the competition for some of the candidates. In such a case, the principle requires the institution concerned to take, without delay, the measures that are necessary to remedy the consequences of the event in question and reasonably to re-establish the equality of chances among the candidates.

16. The complainant alleges that the action taken by EPSO to deal with the problem was not adequate. In particular, he argued that (i) EPSO failed to act promptly and, especially, to inform him on the spot that he could re-sit practical tests c) and d), and (ii) it should also have rescheduled his structured interview, which was affected by the increased amount of stress that he had suffered as a consequence of the incident in the morning.

17. As regards argument (i), the Ombudsman notes that the chronology of the events as reported by EPSO has not been contested by the complainant. According to this chronology, the Ombudsman notes that EPSO reacted very rapidly to the problem, since it immediately informed the candidates affected by the incident of what had happened and, on the following day, further informed them that they would be allowed to re-sit the tests concerned. In particular, the Ombudsman considers that the one-day period taken by EPSO to find a solution to the problem and reschedule the tests was particularly short. The complainant's argument cannot therefore be upheld.

18. As regards argument (ii), the Ombudsman understands that candidates can suffer from high levels of stress during a competition. He also understands that such levels may vary among candidates and may be influenced by external circumstances, like the incident in this case. However, the Ombudsman also considers that, when deciding which action to take following such an incident, EPSO cannot be required to take into consideration each candidate's level of stress, but only to re-establish conditions of objective equality of treatment of candidates.

19. In the present case, the Ombudsman notes that only practical tests c) and d) were directly affected by the technical problem. The complainant's structured interview took place some hours after the problem had occurred and after EPSO had reassured the candidates affected that it would soon take action to remedy its consequences. Under such circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant underwent his structured interview in conditions of objective equality of treatment with other candidates. He cannot therefore uphold his second argument. In this context, the Ombudsman also takes note of EPSO's comment that the complainant's request that he be allowed to re-sit his structured interview was not made after he had been informed of the rescheduling of tests c) and d), but only after he had received the final results of the competition.

B. Conclusions

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

There has been no maladministration in EPSO's activities.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 19 February 2013

---

[1] The Notice of Competition was published in the Official Journal on 17 November 2010, C 312 A.