Background to the complaint

1. The complainant took part in a selection procedure organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) for the recruitment of administrators in the field of Information, communication and technology (ICT) - EPSO/AD/398/22[1]. The selection procedure included reasoning tests and a written case study, which were conducted by remote testing[2]. EPSO uses a contractor to host and oversee these tests.

2. The complainant sat the tests on 5 May 2023. After carrying out the reasoning tests[3], when starting the case study, the complainant encountered a brief connection disruption. After the connection was restored, an employee of EPSO’s contractor  explained to the complainant that due to the disruption, the test had been paused but that she could resume. This employee then carried out the security checks[4]. After that, the complainant had to wait for a ‘proctor’[5] to be available to monitor the test.

3. After some time waiting, the complainant asked the employee who had performed the security checks about the situation. The employee told the complainant that a proctor should be available “any minute now”. The complainant kept waiting and asking regularly if there was an issue. The contractor’s employee said that there were no technical issues and that the complainant should just wait for a proctor to be available. After twenty minutes waiting, the complainant said that she wanted an official complaint recorded. The complainant waited for an hour and twenty minutes and eventually decided to exit the exam.

4. The following day, the complainant wrote to EPSO to complain about the issue, primarily that she had to wait so long for a proctor. EPSO replied and referred to the instructions for remote testing[6], and stated that, in order to process the request, it would need “a ticket number issued by [the contractor] on the scheduled day and time of your test” [7].

5. The complainant said that she did not have a ticket number and contested EPSO’s decision. The complainant and EPSO exchanged additional emails but EPSO reiterated its position.

6. Dissatisfied with EPSO’s answer, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how EPSO handled the complaint. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received EPSO’s reply.

8. In the context of the inquiry, the Ombudsman also asked EPSO to check its technical logs concerning the complainant’s test, which EPSO did.

9. In parallel, the Ombudsman also conducted an own-initiative inquiry into the use by EPSO of remote testing[8]. The findings in that inquiry are relevant for this case.

10. The Ombudsman also conducted inquiries into several other complaints concerning technical issues with remote testing in the context of selection procedure EPSO/AD/398/22. The findings made by the Ombudsman in these other cases are in line with those made in this decision.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

11. The complainant did not understand why EPSO dismissed the complaint. She stated that her issue was not related to the brief disconnection but rather with the subsequent unavailability of a proctor to monitor her test. In addition, she stated that, although she did not contact the contractor’s ‘technical support’[9], she had asked for a complaint to be recorded by the contractor’s employee that carried out the security checks. The complainant contended that this was in line with the instructions.

12.  The complainant also stated that she took the decision to leave after waiting for one hour and twenty minutes for a proctor, as she had a personal commitment to attend to, and, after several hours spent under exam conditions and waiting, she felt that she was no longer capable of doing the case study.

13. In its reply, EPSO stated that the complainant had contacted EPSO, explaining that she had faced technical issue during the case study test. According to EPSO, the complainant claimed in particular to have lost connection with the server. EPSO replied to the complainant, referring to the instructions that candidates have to follow when facing technical issues, in particular that candidates have to provide a ticket number for EPSO to look into the matter. According to EPSO, the complainant contacted EPSO again, saying that she did not have a ticket number because she waited for a proctor for twenty minutes and then decided to exit the exam. In reply, EPSO reiterated the need for a ticket number. 

14. EPSO also provided further explanations regarding how it approaches complaints about technical issues:

• EPSO would automatically offer candidates the possibility to re-sit their tests, where EPSO confirms in the technical ‘logs’ that the candidate experienced a long connection disruption (above ten minutes) or if the test platform was blocked for a majority of candidates.
• Alternatively, EPSO would apply the instructions and request from candidates that they provide a ticket number from the technical support or a copy of the “chat discussion (screen capture) with the Live Proctor on the day and time of the test”. On the basis of this evidence, “EPSO can check what happened during the test, namely by referring to the subject of the chat discussion with Live Proctor (if it is related to a technical issue or not)”.
• If a candidate complains to EPSO without providing a ticket number or a chat copy, but refers to an interruption of more than 10 minutes, EPSO would check the log. If the log revealed that a disruption of at least ten minutes occurred, the candidate would be offered the possibility to re-sit the tests.

15. Following the Ombudsman’s request, EPSO checked the technical log for the candidate’s test. EPSO said that the log revealed that the complainant had experienced a short disruption, below ten minutes. According to EPSO, the log also revealed that the complainant tried to solve the issue by opening the ‘Live Proctor’[10] chat for less than two minutes. EPSO considers that the complainant should have persisted in her efforts to complete the tests and that, in such circumstances, it was legitimate not to offer the complainant the possibility of re-sitting the tests.  Based on the log it consulted, EPSO concluded that the complainant left the tests shortly after the disruption occurred, without trying to solve the issue. According to EPSO, the fact that the complainant left the test also meant that she could not take a screenshot of the ‘Live Proctor’ chat to prove her attempts to resolve the matter.

The Ombudsman's assessment

16. In its reply, EPSO failed to address the main issue raised in the complaint, namely that the complainant allegedly had to wait for over an hour for a proctor to become available. EPSO’s replies, both to the complainant and in the context of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, merely focused on the connection disruption. However, it was clear both from her complaint and from the Ombudsman’s request for reply that the lack of availability of the proctor was the main issue. Thus, on several occasions, EPSO failed to address the main issue in this case.

17. EPSO contended that the complainant did not follow the instructions for remote testing, which state that:

“Should an issue occur, please ensure that:

• during the exam you alert the Proctor via the Live Proctor feature (in the exam) or [the contractors] technical support via the chat link to resolve the issue and request that the incident be logged in writing AND[11]
• you notify EPSO within 3 calendar days after the test in writing via the online contact form with a brief description of the problem encountered.

The obligation to inform EPSO applies in all cases (including when the contractor assures any follow-up).

If you were unable to launch your exam or if you had technical issues during your exam, you should also attach supporting documentation to substantiate your attempts to resolve the issue (such as copy of the chat discussion with the technical support, or the ticket number received from the technical support). You should provide EPSO with this supporting documentation within 3 days from the day you took your test. Any requests not escalated to the [the contractor’s] technical support via this link at the scheduled time of the exam, requests lacking relevant supporting documentation or requests submitted after the deadline will be declined.

18. The complainant stated that she asked the employee who made the security checks to take a written record of her complaint about the delay in getting a proctor. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the complainant did follow the instructions - she alerted the contractor’s employee in charge and requested that the complaint be recorded. It is clear from the instructions that, where an issue occurs, the candidate should inform the person monitoring the test or the technical support. Contacting the technical support and obtaining a ticket number was thus not the only option; the complainant used the option of asking to the contractor’s employee that a complaint be recorded. The Ombudsman found in a previous case with a similar setting that in such situation, it would have been reasonable for EPSO to check the logs[12].

19. EPSO stated that it requires proof that the issue was raised with the contractor during the tests so that it can find out what happened and access the logs. However, EPSO also said that it could check the logs even if candidates complain without having contacted the contractor. It is thus clear, also from other cases dealt with by the Ombudsman, that EPSO can check the logs in any case.[13]

20. EPSO’s statement about how the complainant should have obtained proof of her attempts to resolve the issue also contradicts claims EPSO made in previous Ombudsman inquiries. For instance, while EPSO in this case stated that it would accept a screenshot of the chat with the ‘Live Proctor’, EPSO has said in previous Ombudsman inquiries that it is not possible to take a screenshot when the test application is open.[14] The Ombudsman has conducted several inquiries into complaints concerning selection procedure EPSO/AD/398/22, and EPSO has regrettably provided contradictory and unclear information in its replies in these cases.

21. If EPSO had properly assessed the complaint, it would have identified the main issue, which concerned the availability of a proctor. Had it done so, it should have realised that this was a case in which it would have to take particular care not to apply a narrow interpretation of the instructions about how to report problems. Ultimately, because EPSO failed to understand the main problem faced by the complainant, it also failed to verify the issue in the correct logs.

22. Apart from the fact that EPSO did not address the complainant’s argument about the unavailability of the proctor, it is clear that EPSO did not handle the complaint in line with the instructions. As such, there was maladministration by EPSO in dismissing the complaint without further investigation.

23. The log records provided by EPSO in the context of this inquiry merely demonstrate the connection issue faced by the complainant. However, as mentioned above, this was not the main problem. EPSO argued that the complainant left the test shortly after the connection issue. The complainant contends that she waited over an hour for a proctor and only then left the application. The logs provided in the context of this inquiry do not enable the Ombudsman to reach a conclusion on this.

24. In any event, had EPSO properly investigated the complaint in a timely manner, it could have been possible to explore the possibility to allow the complainant to re-sit the tests. As such, by failing to do so, EPSO deprived the complainant of the opportunity to access a remedy and to participate in the selection procedure. However, the Ombudsman previously acknowledged the practical challenges of providing appropriate redress in cases where the selection procedure has been finalised[15]. If it is not possible to reintegrate a candidate into the selection procedure in question, the EU Court has found in similar cases that redress could be provided by organising a separate, individual selection procedure for the complainant at a similar stage of a selection procedure as that where the problem occurred. If that is not possible, the Courts suggested the EU body should enter into dialogue with the complainant with a view to agreeing on another fair solution.

25. Against this background, the Ombudsman considers that it would not be feasible to make a prescriptive corresponding recommendation. However, she makes a suggestion for EPSO to enter into dialogue with the complainant with a view to finding an appropriate and fair solution.

Conclusion

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

There was maladministration by EPSO in how it handled a complaint about issues experienced by a candidate in remote tests.

EPSO and the complainant will be informed of this decision.

Suggestion

EPSO should enter into dialogue with the complainant with a view to finding an appropriate and fair solution.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 08/07/2024

 

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

[2] Tests are taken by candidates remotely, through a dedicated application

[3] Verbal, numerical and abstract multiple-choice questionnaire, the duration of which is about one hour.

[4] In the context of remote testing, security checks are carried out to verify that the area in which candidates are sitting the test complies with the instructions.

[5] Proctors are employees of EPSO’s contractor, who are in charge of, for instance, monitoring the tests.

[6] The instructions set out details about remote testing and contain a section about reporting technical issues. They are shared with the candidates ahead of the test but they are not available to the candidates during the test itself.

[7] According to EPSO, this number allows it to access a written record of an incident.

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

[9] The online technical support chat is accessed through a pop up chat box. It is possible to save a transcript of the chat at any time.

[10] A dedicated feature available in the test application, enabling candidates to chat with the proctor or contractor’s employee monitoring their tests.

[11] Emphasis used by EPSO in the instructions

[12] See 1027/2023/MAG https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/64094

[13] See 1866/2023/MAG https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/64925 and 1539/2023/MAG https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/64601

[14] See OI/1/2023/VS

[15] See 1735/2023/MAG https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/64796  and 413/2023/MAG https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/63469