Background to the complaint

1. The complainant was a candidate in selection procedure EPSO/AD/398/22-5 - Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Experts.[1] He was scheduled to take the remotely proctored computer-based multiple choice tests[2] and case study at 8am on 4 May 2023.

2. On the day of the tests, the complainant logged into the test application at about 7:20am. At that stage he received an error message stating that the application was blocked. He tried several times until 7:58am to connect to the application but experienced the same problem. After these unsuccessful attempts, he contacted the technical support and obtained a ‘ticket number’. Despite the instructions he received (such as to restart his computer and to re-install the test application), the problem persisted. The complainant subsequently borrowed another computer and was able to connect and complete the test.

3. On the next day, 5 May 2023, the complainant sent a complaint to EPSO about the technical issues he experienced. He contended that the problems and resulting stress had a negative impact on his performance once he was finally able to access the application from another computer. He requested to re-sit the tests.

4. On 1 June 2023, EPSO replied to the complaint. It stated that the technical problems experienced by the complainant were due to the fact he had connected to the application too early. It noted that he had subsequently been able to sit the test. EPSO therefore closed the complaint.

5. Dissatisfied with EPSO’s reply to his complaint, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The inquiry

6. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how EPSO had dealt with the complaint.

7. In the context of the inquiry, the Ombudsman asked EPSO to clarify the instructions provided to candidates on when to launch the test application. The Ombudsman also asked EPSO to provide details on how it deals with complaints, in particular complaints about technical problems.

8. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received the reply of EPSO on the complaint and, subsequently, the comments of the complainant in response to EPSO’s reply.

EPSO’s reply

9. EPSO said that the written instructions to candidates ask them not to launch the tests more than 30 minutes before the start of the tests. The test application will not launch if candidates attempt to do so more than 30 minutes before the scheduled start time. However, even if a candidate does launch the tests earlier, this does not mean they are disqualified. Where candidates unsuccessfully attempt to launch the application too early, this should not prevent them from successfully launching the application within 30 minutes of the scheduled start. There is a test ‘window’, which allows candidates to begin their tests up to 30 minutes before the indicated start time and up to 120 minutes after. This flexibility is put in place to address technical issues that candidates may need to resolve before commencing the tests.

10. Regarding the complainant’s situation, EPSO said that, after the initial difficulties experienced by the complainant before 7:30am on the day of the test, he should have been able to relaunch the application after 7:30am and that it is not clear why he was unable to do so.

11. EPSO said that the complainant had followed the correct procedure for reporting technical issues and submitting a complaint. It clarified that its reply of June 2023, informing the complainant that resitting the tests was not possible because he had not followed the instructions and had launched the tests too early, was not accurate. However, as he ultimately sat the tests with no major issues (using a different computer), it did not accept his request to re-sit the tests.

12. EPSO added that it cannot tell to what extent the complainant’s performance was affected by the stress of the technical issues he faced before successfully launching the test. Each individual experiences stress in their own manner, and this therefore cannot be a factor in decisions on whether to allow candidates to re-sit tests. Such decisions must be based on objective facts. As allowing candidates to re-sit tests may give them an unfair advantage over other candidates, it is a measure to be used sparingly in justified circumstances, to preserve the obligation to ensure the equal treatment between candidates.

13. Regarding the time required to process complaints, EPSO said that it usually replies within a few days. However, where it needs to obtain data logs from its contractor, this may increase the time it needs to process complaints. In the complainant’s case, there was an extra delay as EPSO had to process a higher than usual number of complaints as there was a technical incident with a server on 10 May 2023, which caused test delays of up to 2 hours for many candidates.

Comments by the complainant

14. The complainant noted that EPSO admitted that the reasoning given in its decision on his complaint was inaccurate. He maintained his position that he should have been allowed to re-sit the tests.

15. The complainant emphasised that the technical problems and resulting stress he faced meant that he did not have equal conditions and opportunity to perform compared to a candidate that did not experience any technical issues. The complainant added that the fact he had to sit the tests on a different computer, with suboptimal technical specifications, further added to his disadvantage.

16. The complainant contended that, in other recent selection procedures, candidates that had completed the tests were given the possibility to re-sit the tests, after they experienced technical issues with the test application. He argued that EPSO should allow him to re-sit the tests to ensure it respects its obligation to guarantee the equal treatment of all candidates.

The Ombudsman's assessment

17. As the Ombudsman has previously found, sitting tests in selection procedures is an inherently stressful experience[3], which is undeniably compounded where candidates experience technical problems. It is therefore regrettable that the complainant experienced such problems. As EPSO implied in its reply, it appears that many other candidates in the selection procedure in question also experienced technical problems.

18. EPSO essentially argued that, as the complainant ultimately sat the tests, it could not offer him the possibility to re-sit the tests. It contended that doing so could undermine the equality of opportunity of other candidates. The complainant argued that, due to the stress he experienced trying to resolve the technical issues, he did not have equal opportunity to perform in the tests. The Ombudsman appreciates the stress experienced by the complainant in this situation. However, as pointed out by EPSO, it is very difficult to quantify stress and to determine what impact it has on a candidate’s performance. In this context, EPSO’s position that a re-sit was not possible is not unreasonable. As such, the Ombudsman takes the view that no further inquiries are justified into this aspect of the complaint.

19. However, as EPSO itself noted, the reason it provided in its decision as to why the complainant could not re-sit the tests was inaccurate. It is good administrative practice to inform individuals of the grounds on which a decision is based[4] and, clearly, to ensure that the decisions state the correct grounds. How EPSO handled the complainant’s complaint is thus at odds with the principles of good administration. In the context of the Ombudsman’s own-initiative inquiry on EPSO’s use of remote testing[5], the Ombudsman has already made a suggestion for improvement to EPSO regarding how it deals with complaints, and the need to provide clear, consistent and coherent replies. In the context of this inquiry, the Ombudsman finds it appropriate to reiterate this suggestion. The Ombudsman will continue to monitor how EPSO follows up on complaints from candidates experiencing problems with remote testing.

Conclusion

On the basis of the inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes the case with the following finding[6]:

No further inquiries are justified in this case.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

Tina Nilsson
Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg, 12/06/2024

 

[1] https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/job-opportunities/competition/9190/description

[2] The reasoning tests consist of sets of questions in the field of verbal, numerical and abstract reasoning.

[3] See para. 36 of the Ombudsman’s decision in OI/1/2023/VS, available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/180990

[4] See Article 18 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/publication/en/3510

[5] Case OI/1/2023/VS: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/63317

[6] This complaint has been dealt with under delegated case handling, in accordance with the Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions