Background to the complaint

1. The complainant took part in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants[1], which was organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO). The selection procedure was organised to recruit ‘heads of administration’ in EU delegations.

2. The complainant booked an appointment in October 2022 to sit a remote computer-based multiple-choice question (MCQ) test in Spanish. The test was to be supervised through the ProProctor application of Prometric, the service provider contracted by EPSO to organise the test, with Prometric invigilators verifying candidates’ identity before they start the test and supervising the test.

3. When the complainant attempted to take the test, he found that the test was set up in English, so he did not proceed and raised the issue with EPSO. EPSO rescheduled the complainant’s test for November 2022, but informed him that, in case of technical issues during the second test, it would not be possible to reschedule the appointment again.

4. When the complainant connected to the online test system for his second appointment, the invigilator was unable to read clearly his ID through the webcam of his computer. The complainant was instructed to logout, take a picture of his ID with his phone, reconnect and show the invigilator the picture. The complainant did as instructed, but, when he accessed the online test system again, he was assigned a new invigilator who was not aware of this procedure for ID verification and who did not allow him to take the test.

5. On the same day, the complainant reported the issue to EPSO, noting that he had followed the instructions received by the first invigilator on the day of the test. He noted that he had been asked to follow the same procedure also during his first appointment in October without any issues.

6. EPSO informed the complainant that, as previously stated, the second test date could not be further rescheduled. In addition, given that the complainant had not raised the issue with Prometric’s technical assistance beforehand, in accordance with the applicable rules, EPSO could not deal with the matter.

7. In December 2022, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman.

The inquiry

8. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into:

1) the fact that, in case of technical issues during the second test appointment, the test could not be rescheduled again;

2) EPSO’s decision not to follow up on the complainant’s report about the issues he experienced during the second test appointment because he had not contacted Prometric’s technical support before turning to EPSO, (the Ombudsman noted that this requirement was not included in the ‘notice of competition’[2]); and

3) the information given to the complainant by two different invigilators during the second test appointment, and how EPSO monitors and ensures consistency in the work of the invigilators.

9. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received EPSO’s reply on the complaint. The Ombudsman offered the complainant the opportunity to comment on EPSO’s reply. The complainant did not do so.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

Rescheduling of the test

10. EPSO said that the first test was not configured in English, as claimed by the complainant, but in Spanish. The complainant thought that the test was in English because the interface and the tutorial are in English and the language indicated in the page where, before starting the test, candidates need to confirm the details of their test (‘the confirm details page’) was English. This was clearly indicated in the instructions attached to the invitation. Nevertheless, EPSO decided to reschedule the test, as it considered that the complainant could have been misled by the information provided by the invigilator on the day of the test.

11. EPSO explained that standard procedure is to allow only one rescheduling opportunity to ensure that the selection procedure is not prolonged indefinitely.

Failure by EPSO to follow up on the issues reported by the complainant with the second appointment

12. EPSO stated that the notice of competition sets out that, if a problem occurs during remote testing, candidates should inform invigilators immediately and ask them to record the complaint in writing. EPSO’s instructions are more specific and request candidates to notify the invigilator or Prometric’s technical support during the exam, and ask them to resolve the issue and request the incident to be logged in writing. The instructions further set out that, if a candidate is unable to launch the exam or if they have technical issues during the exam, they should, when contacting EPSO, provide supporting documentation proving their attempt to resolve the issue with the technical support. The instructions state that EPSO would not deal with requests that have not been notified to Prometric’s technical support at the time of the exam. EPSO considers that these rules are necessary to obtain evidence allowing it to properly investigate complaints and ensure the smooth running of selection procedures.

13. Regarding the fact that the requirement to contact Prometric’s technical support is not specifically set out in the notice of competition, EPSO said that, according to EU case-law, candidates have to comply with the test-related instructions provided in preparation for the test.[3] Thus, EPSO considers it appropriate that certain requirements are set out in instructions rather than directly in the notice of competition. If all test-related information were to be included in the notice of competition, the notice would become too long and technical. In addition, by not including this information in the notice of competition, EPSO has more flexibility to update information relevant to taking the tests closer to the test, if needed.

Information given by the invigilators

14. EPSO expressed regret that the complainant did not receive clear information from the invigilators during the second test attempt.

15. EPSO noted that Prometric’s invigilators do not work for EPSO only. They have many clients whose practices might diverge. This is why EPSO tries to give as much guidance as possible in the instructions attached to the invitation to tests.

16. In addition, to ensure the smooth running of tests and equal treatment of candidates, EPSO carries out an exchange with Prometric following each large test on the lessons learned. In this context, EPSO provides Prometric with detailed feedback based on the candidates’ experience and EPSO’s own investigations into issues that arose during testing.

17. EPSO also has a ‘client practice’ document, which frames the invigilator’s tasks and gives guidance on EPSO’s tests and practices, including practical examples. For instance, based on the experience of this case, the document now provides information on how to proceed when candidates believe that the test is in the wrong language. The client practice document also contains detailed information regarding acceptable forms of ID. EPSO organises a live information session before launching the first test of a selection procedure to remind all invigilators of the key elements set out in the client practice. Moreover, should EPSO become aware, after a test, that an invigilator shared incorrect information with a candidate, all invigilators are given feedback and are reminded of the correct practice.

18. In addition, all candidates are sent detailed instructions to take the test remotely.

The Ombudsman's assessment

19. EPSO clarified that the complainant’s first test was correctly configured in Spanish, but the information in the ‘confirm detail’ page was in English, which was the complainant’s second language. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the instructions for remotely proctored testing clearly state that the language of the tutorial and of the test interface will be in the candidate’s second language. They also clarify that the language in which the candidate will take the test is the one indicated in the invitation letter and that the invigilator might not be aware of the test language combination. Candidates are advised to take the test in case of doubt and, in the event the test is in an incorrect language, to contact EPSO within three calendar days after the test. The instructions also provide a screenshot of the test interface, clarifying that the language indicated in the “confirm details” page corresponds to the communication language and not to the language of the test.

20. While it is regrettable that the complainant did not get assistance from Prometric on the day of the test, the instructions for remotely proctored testing clearly state that, in case of doubt, candidates should take the test and, if necessary, contact EPSO after the test. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman considers that it would be simpler to clearly specify on the ‘confirm details’ page what the language of the test is. This would prevent situations such as the one in this case. The Ombudsman will make a suggestion to address this.

21. The Ombudsman understands that EPSO’s position is that rescheduling test appointments more than once would mean it is not possible to guarantee that the selection procedure is completed within a definite timeframe. While the Ombudsman understands the need not to unnecessarily prolong a procedure, candidates should not be negatively affected by this. If a candidate experiences issues with a rescheduled test and those issues are not the fault of the candidate, it would appear fair and reasonable to allow such candidates to reschedule their tests again.  The Ombudsman will make a suggestion to address this.

22. The Ombudsman is not convinced by EPSO’s explanation regarding the decision not to include in the notice of competition information on the requirement to contact Prometric’s technical support on issues experienced by candidates. Given this is a requirement for EPSO to deal with a subsequent complaint, it would appear essential that such important information is included in the notice of competition, and that this could be done without the notice becoming too long and technical.

23. Regarding the conflicting information received by the complainant from the different invigilators, the Ombudsman appreciates that EPSO had in place systems to try to ensure consistent action by them. However, it is of the utmost importance to guarantee that all candidates are treated equally, which implies that invigilators adopt a consistent approach in all their interactions with candidates. While EPSO recently announced that it is switching to automated remote proctoring for testing, if it envisages to rely on Prometric’s invigilators again in the future, EPSO should strengthen its safeguards to ensure consistency in the invigilators’ actions.

24. However, the Ombudsman is already carrying out an own initiative inquiry into EPSO’s use of remote testing (OI/1/2023/VS)[4], which covers some of the issues raised in this complaint. In light of this and of the fact that the complainant did not provide any comments on EPSO’s reply, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified in this case. The Ombudsman will make suggestions for improvement to EPSO to address the issues she identified.

Conclusion

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

No further inquiries are justified in this case.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

Suggestions for improvement

25. In the ‘confirm details’ page of a remote test, EPSO should clearly indicate what language the test will be in for the candidate in question.

26. Where candidates experience issues in rescheduled tests that are not their fault, EPSO should allow such candidates to reschedule again.

27. Where EPSO requires candidates to first have contacted its external contractor’s technical support before making a complaint to it about issues that happened during a remote test, it should clearly set out this requirement in the notice of competition.

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 10/11/2023

 

[1] EPSO/AST/153/22, Heads of Administration in EU Delegations https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/job-opportunities/heads-administration-eu-delegations.

[2] The notice of competition sets out the criteria and rules applying to the selection procedure.

[3] Judgement of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 June 2007, De Meerleer v Commission, F-121/05, para 87, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=60975&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3150803; Judgement of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 November 2007, Kerelov v Commission, F-19/07, para 37, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=70617&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3151239.

[4] https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/63317.