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 assistants in the field of information and communication technology - EPSO/AST/151/22[1]. The selection procedure included reasoning tests, which were conducted by remote testing[2]. EPSO used a service provider to host and oversee these tests.[3]

2. The complainant was due to sit remotely proctored tests on 16 May 2023. According to the complainant, after reading the instructions for the case study[4], she attempted to start the exercise. However, the supporting documents were displayed in the middle of the screen, with no editing functionality or note-taking tool to type the case study. In addition, the timer displaying the remaining time to complete the case study showed only two minutes instead of 90, as foreseen.

3. The complainant immediately informed the ‘proctor’[5] monitoring the tests, orally and by writing in the chat. The proctor asked the complainant to click on the ‘next’ button, which was the only option displayed. The complainant did so and was redirected to a survey page. The complainant contacted the proctor again, raising concerns since she understood that the survey is usually at the end of the tests. She asked the proctor to make a record of the ‘incident’.

4. The proctor instructed the complainant to exit the application and shared a link to the service provider’s online technical support, stating that the complainant should contact it in case she could no longer reconnect to the test after exiting the application. The complainant did so and reconnected to the tests, but was again redirected to the survey. She asked for assistance, and the proctor asked her to complete the survey. The complainant did so and the application then displayed the message that the complainant had completed the test.

5. The complainant again contacted the proctor, who ultimately informed her that they could not solve the issue. They instructed the complainant to contact the technical support. The complainant tried to contact the technical support on the service provider’s website, but was simply redirected to the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ (FAQ) section. Eventually, the complainant used a ‘contact form’ to submit a complaint to the service provider. In parallel, the complainant sent a complaint to EPSO.

6. EPSO rejected the complainant’s complaint on the basis that she had not contacted the service provider’s technical support during the tests, nor provided a ‘ticket number’[6] as evidence of having done so. The complainant questioned EPSO’s position, but EPSO confirmed its decision.

7. On 24 July 2023, the complainant received a message from EPSO, informing her that she had failed to “book or sit the case study exam” and that she was therefore disqualified from the selection procedure. The complainant asked EPSO to review[7] its decision. EPSO rejected the request on the basis that a request for review could not be made in relation to technical issues. EPSO informed the complainant that it would not engage in further correspondence concerning the matter.

8. Dissatisfied with how EPSO handled her complaint, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman.

The inquiry

9. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received the reply of EPSO on the Ombudsman’s request for information and, subsequently, the comments of the complainant on EPSO’s reply.

10. In its letter to EPSO, the Ombudsman requested that EPSO verify the technical logs related to the complainant’s tests.

11. Prior to receiving this complaint, the Ombudsman had carried out several inquiries concerning how EPSO handled complaints regarding technical issues in remote tests. The findings made in these inquiries are relevant for this case.[8]

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

12. In her complaint, the complaint argued in essence that EPSO was wrong to have dismissed her complaint for not following the instructions regarding troubleshooting technical issues. The complaint contended that she had alerted the proctor during the test and therefore complied with both EPSO’s instructions and the notice of competition.

13. In its reply to the Ombudsman, EPSO reiterated that the complainant had failed to contact the technical support of its service provider during the test, and to provide a ticket number as a proof of having done so. EPSO explained that, since its contractual relationship with the service provider had been terminated, it was no longer possible to access the technical logs. Instead, EPSO provided extracts of its own documentation and, in particular, the ‘incident report’ relevant to the initial complaint submitted by the complainant.

14. EPSO’s conclusion was that, based on this document, there was no reason to question the assessment made at the time.

The Ombudsman's assessment

15. The Ombudsman previously carried out several inquiries into instances where EPSO had dismissed complaints about technical issues on the basis that complainants had not provided a ticket number issued by the technical support of the service provider. In a series of decisions, the Ombudsman found that, according to the notice of competition and instructions for remote testing, candidates encountering technical issues could turn to the proctor or the online technical support to report an issue. Hence, EPSO could not dismiss complaints only because complainant had not provided a ticket number.

16. In this case, the Ombudsman is also of the view that EPSO was wrong to dismiss the complaint merely because the complainant did not provide a ticket number.

17. In the context of the inquiries referenced above, the Ombudsman pointed out that, whenever complainants state that they followed the proctors’ instructions and asked for a complaint to be recorded in writing, EPSO should demonstrate flexibility and assess further any subsequent related complaint.

18. In this case, the documents provided by EPSO, along with its reply to this inquiry, show that, after receiving the complaint, EPSO verified the technical logs[9]. These logs demonstrated that the complainant had indeed been redirected to the survey page after starting the case study. The logs also showed that the complainant had been disconnected from the test platform for 20 minutes before being reconnected. The incident report also shows that, based on this information, EPSO considered asking the service provider for more details about the incident.

19. In the Ombudsman’s view, this shows that EPSO had sufficient indications that a technical problem occurred, as reported by the complainant. It is also clear that this issue may have been of a ‘substantial nature’, given that the complainant could not conduct the test at all, thus compromising her ability to succeed in the selection procedure.  However, EPSO decided that, in the absence of a ticket number, the complaint could not be upheld. It is particularly unfortunate that EPSO did not follow up on the suggestion made in the incident report to investigate further.

20. In light of this, and in line with the findings in the previous inquiries mentioned above, the Ombudsman finds that EPSO was wrong to dismiss the complaint. This constituted maladministration.

21. In its replies to the findings and suggestion in the Ombudsman’s inquiries referenced above, EPSO has informed the Ombudsman of its intention to offer complainants the possibility to re-sit tests in several cases[10]. The Ombudsman therefore makes a suggestion for EPSO to enter into dialogue with the complainant with a view to finding an appropriate and fair solution in this case, such as offering the complainant the possibility to re-sit the tests.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion[11]:

There was maladministration in how EPSO handled the complainant’s complaint without further investigation.

Suggestion

EPSO should enter into dialogue with the complainant with a view to finding an appropriate and fair solution, such as offering the complainant the opportunity to re-sit the tests.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 13/02/2025

 

[1] Assistants - Digital workplace, office automation and mobile computing https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/job-opportunities/assistants-digital-workplace-office-automation-and-mobile-computing

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

[3] EPSO has since terminated its contract with the service provider in question.

[4] The case study was a written exam during which candidates had to analyse documents and draft a written reply to the problematic or question(s) asked.

[5]  Proctors were employees of EPSO’s service provider, who were in charge of monitoring the tests and providing assistance to candidates that experienced issues during the tests.

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

[7] If they consider that there has been a material error or a breach of the rules of the selection procedure, candidates can request a review of any decision of the selection board or EPSO that affects their progress at any stage of the selection procedure: https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/help/faq/2342.

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

[9] Thus demonstrating that a ticket number is not a requirement based on technical justification but a mere procedural requirement.

[10] See for instance case 261/2024/MAG https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/65774

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