Background to the complaint

1. The complainant participated in two EU staff selection procedures organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) for the recruitment of administrators and assistants, respectively, in the field of Information, communication and technology (EPSO/AD/398/22[1] and EPSO/AST/151/22[2]). As part of the selection procedures, the complainant had to take remotely-proctored ‘reasoning tests’[3] monitored by an external contractor of EPSO.

2. On 10 May 2023, the complainant sat the tests of the selection procedure EPSO/AD/398/22. He encountered technical issues which prevented him from launching the test. After two attempts, the complainant tried to contact the ‘technical support’[4] but was placed in a very long waiting queue and, after some time, finally stopped waiting. He tried to launch the test again and the ‘proctor’[5] to whom he got connected[6] informed him that there were issues with the test servers. The test was launched with a delay of two hours and the complainant was able to take the test. After completing the test, the complainant sent a complaint to EPSO to report this issue.

3. On 11 May 2023, EPSO informed the complainant that it would transfer his “comments” to the testing operations unit, and that, should he wish to submit a complaint in the future, he should do so within the appropriate deadline and according to the instructions for remote testing, which set out that candidates should provide documentation demonstrating that they raised the issue with EPSO’s contractor at the time of the test.

4. On the same day, the complainant sat the tests of selection procedure EPSO/AST/151/22. He did not encounter problems on that day but he noticed that certain functionalities available during these tests, such as the possibility to copy-paste from the calculator, had not been available during the tests he had taken the day before in the context of the selection procedure EPSO/AD/398/22.

5. After finishing these tests, the complainant wrote again to EPSO to raise this issue. EPSO dismissed this complaint as it claimed that the complainant had not submitted his complaint in line with the instructions for remote testing, and that he had not raised the issue with the contractor at the time of the test. The complainant argued that he could not have known, before sitting other tests on 11 May 2023, which features had not been available on the 10 May 2023, as this was his first time taking remote tests organised by EPSO.

6. On 12 May 2023, the complainant sent an email to EPSO’s contractor and received an automatic case number which he submitted to EPSO. EPSO maintained its position, and further argued that an automatic case number was not a proof of his attempts to reach the technical support at the time of the test, to raise his concerns about both the launching of the test and the absence of certain technical features. According to EPSO, the instructions for remote testing clearly stated that a ‘ticket number’[7] issued by the technical support at the time of the test was required.

7. Dissatisfied with EPSO’s replies, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The inquiry

8. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the following aspects of the complaint: a) what proof EPSO required in terms of troubleshooting; and b) what elements EPSO took into account when processing the complaint.

9. In this context, the Ombudsman received EPSO’s reply on the complaint and, subsequently, the comments of the complainant in response.

10. In parallel, the Ombudsman conducted an own-initiative inquiry concerning EPSO’s remote testing[8]. The conclusions made in this context are relevant for this inquiry.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

11. The complainant argued that he had followed the instructions for remote testing: by contacting the technical support during the tests and providing EPSO, within three days from the day of the test, with supporting documents demonstrating his attempts to resolve the issue during the test.  The complainant stated that he used the online technical support chat, to which he provided information such as his full name and confirmation number, and he believed this was sufficient. Within the time limit, he then reported the issue to EPSO, along with pictures of his chat with the proctors in which they confirmed that technical issues occurred and affected the launch of the tests.

12. As regards the issues with the calculator and other tools, the complainant argued that, because the tests he took on 10 May 2023 was his first experience with EPSO’s remote testing, he could not possibly have known before that what features should be available. It was only the day after, when he sat the other tests, that he discovered that some of these features had not been available on 10 May 2023. The complainant hence considered that it was legitimate to complain about these issues, and that this would merely be a continuation of the complaint he had made regarding the launching of the test on 10 May 2023.

13. In its reply to this inquiry, EPSO confirmed that, on 10 May 2023, server issues had occurred, which explained the difficulties the complainant had encountered launching the test[9]. However, EPSO contended that the complainant had not followed the instructions for troubleshooting issues with remote tests:

a. The complaint sent by the complainant on 10 May 2023 was related to the difficulty in launching the exam. In relation to this, the complainant provided pictures of the chat with two of the proctors he dealt with but, in EPSO’s view, this did not equate to contacting the technical support chat on its contractor’s website.

b. Similarly, when the complainant reported on 11 May 2023 that he had realised that certain features of the testing tools had not been available during the tests on 10 May 2023, he did not provide a proof of having raised the issue with the contractor’s technical support at the time of the test.

14. EPSO emphasised that there were no technical means to verify afterwards that some features of the tools were indeed not working. Hence, a ‘ticket number’ issued by the technical support was the only way to assess in substance such complaints. In the absence of this, EPSO had to dismiss the complaint.

15. In his comments on EPSO’s reply, the complainant stated that “EPSO's confirmation that there were certain technical issues (server downtime)” on 10 May 2023 should be considered sufficient to allow him to re-sit the tests.

The Ombudsman's assessment

16. The delay encountered by the complainant with launching the test on 10 May 2023 could have had an impact on the complainant’s performance. It is the Ombudsman’s long-standing view that recruitment procedures are an inherently stressful situation for candidates. Long delays in launching remote tests can clearly compound such stress. However, a delay in itself is not necessarily sufficient to justify offering a candidate the possibility to re-sit a test.

17. In response to the complainant’s concerns about the lack of certain functionalities, EPSO merely referred to the fact that the complainant had not raised the issue with the contractor’s technical support at the time of the test. It did not address the complainant’s argument that he could not have raised the matter with the technical support, since he became aware of the problem only after sitting his subsequent test. Given it was his first time sitting such a test, this argument appears reasonable and, at the very least, EPSO should have replied to it. While standardising replies may be necessary to a certain extent to ensure efficient processing of complaints, there are clearly limits to this, and EPSO should ensure that the replies it issues address legitimate concerns raised by complainants. The failure to do so could undermine the trust of candidates in the test process.

18. Moreover, in the context of another Ombudsman inquiry[10], EPSO stated that, when candidates experience an issue but were able to finish the test(s), it would consider it reasonable that they did not contact the technical support during the test. In such a case, EPSO stated that it would further investigate the technical logs of a case. This logic clearly appears equally valid in this case, where the complainant could not contact the technical support during the test, since he was not aware of the issue until subsequently. The Ombudsman considers that EPSO was wrong to reject the complaint merely because the complainant did not raise the issues with the technical support, particularly given it was aware of general technical problems with the tests. 

19. EPSO stated that, in the absence of a ‘ticket number’, there is no technical means to verify afterwards whether certain functions of the calculator were not available. However, it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that a ‘ticket number’ does not constitute a recording of the technical problem as such. A ‘ticket number’ is merely evidence of a technical issue having been reported at the time of the test. In this context, the Ombudsman does not consider EPSO to have provided convincing arguments as to why it could not verify that some features of the tools were indeed not working.

20. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in how EPSO dealt with the complaint.  

21.  However, as already acknowledged by the Ombudsman in previous inquiries into EPSO’s remote testing[11], there may be practical challenges of providing appropriate redress in cases such as this case, where the selection procedure has been finalised.

22. If it is not possible to reintegrate a candidate into the selection procedure in question, the EU Court has previously 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.

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

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

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

Suggestion

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

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 08/07/2024

 

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.CA.2022.076.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2022%3A076A%3ATOC

[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.CA.2022.076.01.0032.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2022%3A076A%3ATOC

[3] Tests are taken by candidates remotely, through a dedicated application .The reasoning tests consist in sets of questions in the field of verbal, numerical and abstract reasoning.

[4] The technical support helpdesk of EPSO’s contractor available through an online chat.

[5] Proctors are employees of EPSO’s contractor, who are in charge of monitoring the tests, performing security checks and providing assistance to candidates that experience issues during the tests.

[6] Once they connect to the test application, candidates are put in a waiting queue until they get connected to a proctor which will perform security checks before launching the tests and monitoring them.

[7] An eight digit number that EPSO stated corresponds to a written record of an incident.

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

[9] The Ombudsman received other complaints related to issues which had occurred on that day.

[10] Case 1866/2023/MAG https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/64925

[11] See for instance 413/2023/MAG https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/63469 and 1027/2023/MAG https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/64094