# Decision on how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dealt with a complaint about technical problems in a selection procedure EPSO/AST/155/22 - Assistants in the field of occupational health and safety (case 546/2023/MAG)
- Author: European Ombudsman
- Date: 2024-07-19T10:00+02:00[Europe/Paris]
- [URL](https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/189712)
---
> The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dealt with a complaint by a candidate who experienced technical issues during remote tests as part of a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants. EPSO rejected the complaint as the complainant failed to provide the necessary evidence that he had tried to contact the technical support.
>
> Although EPSO could have communicated more clearly with the complainant in relation to his complaint, the Ombudsman's inquiry revealed that the complainant had failed to perform a mandatory system check prior to the tests. According to the instructions for remote testing, failing to perform this check would mean that, where candidates experienced technical issues during the tests, they would not be able to re-sit the tests. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with the conclusion that no further inquiries are justified.
>
>
Background to the complaint
---------------------------
**1.** The complainant was a candidate in a selection procedure EPSO/AST/155/22[\[1\]](#_ftn1){#_ftnref1} organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) for the recruitment of assistants in the field of occupational health safety. As part of the procedure, on 7 February 2023, the complainant was due to take a remotely-proctored[\[2\]](#_ftn2){#_ftnref2} 'reasoning tests'[\[3\]](#_ftn3){#_ftnref3}. EPSO used a contractor to host and oversee these tests.
**2.** The complainant was able to access the test application and to perform the security checks[\[4\]](#_ftn4){#_ftnref4} with an employee of the contractor. However, the complainant was not able to launch the tests. The complainant used the chat in the test application to ask for assistance. The chat did not function properly, and the employee of EPSO's contactor instructed the complainant to relaunch the application. The complainant did so, and encountered the same issue. He repeated this operation several times. Eventually, he could no longer log into the application[\[5\]](#_ftn5){#_ftnref5} and consequently could not take the tests.
**3.** The following day, the complainant complained to EPSO about the issue. In reply, EPSO stated that, in line with the instructions[\[6\]](#_ftn6){#_ftnref6} for remote testing, candidates who encounter issues during remote tests should alert the 'proctor'[\[7\]](#_ftn7){#_ftnref7} or contact the 'online technical support'[\[8\]](#_ftn8){#_ftnref8} of the contractor. EPSO stated that it requires a 'ticket number'[\[9\]](#_ftn9){#_ftnref9} issued by the technical support of the contractor in order to access the relevant technical files and process the complaint.
**4.** The complainant argued that he tried to alert the contractor's employee and to write in the chat[\[10\]](#_ftn10){#_ftnref10} , but explained that the chat did not work properly and that the employee merely said that the issue was "*on* \[the complainant's\] *side*". In reply, EPSO confirmed that a ticket number was required for processing the complaint. EPSO also referred to the unsuccessful attempts to use the chat mentioned by the complainant and asked if the complainant could provide a transcript of this chat.
**5.**As the complainant could not provide the evidence required by EPSO, he turned to the Ombudsman.
The inquiry
-----------
**6.**The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received the reply of EPSO. The Ombudsman invited the complainant to provide comments on the reply. The complainant did not do so.
**7.**In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman also asked EPSO if it would be able to check the 'technical logs' concerning the complainant's request, which EPSO did.
**8.** In parallel, the Ombudsman also conducted an own-initiative inquiry[\[11\]](#_ftn11){#_ftnref11} into EPSO's use of remote testing as well as several individual inquiries into complaints from candidates who experienced technical issues during remote testing. The findings made in the course of these inquires are relevant in this case.
### Arguments presented to the Ombudsman
**9.**The complainant argued that EPSO kept asking for a ticket number although he had clearly explained that he could not use the chat properly and that the contractor's employee performing the security checks did not provide assistance.
**10.** In its reply to this inquiry, EPSO maintained that it required a ticket number to deal with the complaint and explained that candidates may obtain a ticket number by contacting the online technical support Alternatively, candidates can provide *"a transcript of the chat"* with the technical support.
**11.** EPSO also pointed out that, according to the instructions for remote testing, candidates are required to perform a 'enhanced readiness check'[\[12\]](#_ftn12){#_ftnref12} prior to the tests. This in order to verify that the candidate's computer is fit for the tests. Failure to complete these checks within a specific time limit prior to the day of the tests would mean that it would not be possible for such candidates to re-sit their tests in case of subsequent technical issues. Following the Ombudsman's request, EPSO analysed the relevant technical logs and found that the complainant did not carry out the mandatory enhanced readiness check before the tests.
### The Ombudsman's assessment
**12.** On the day of the tests, the complainant made several attempts to alert the persons in charge of the security checks about his problems to launch the tests, but they could not help him. In order to deal with his complaint, EPSO requested the complainant to provide proof of having contacted the online technical support. The Ombudsman has previously found[\[13\]](#_ftn13){#_ftnref13} that such a narrow reading of the instructions to candidates may not be in line with good administration and that, in certain circumstances, EPSO should investigate the matter further also when a candidate has not contacted the technical support but used other means to report a technical problem.
**13.** However, in the course of the inquiry, EPSO analysed the relevant technical logs, which it claimed demonstrated that the complainant had not performed the mandatory enhanced readiness check. As EPSO pointed out, according to the instructions given to candidates, failure to complete these checks within a specific time limit prior to the day of the tests would mean that it would not be possible for such candidates to re-sit their tests in case of subsequent technical issues. The Ombudsman has previously found this requirement to be reasonable[\[14\]](#_ftn14){#_ftnref14}.
**14.**In this case, there is nothing to suggest that EPSO's statement regarding the failure by the complainant to complete the readiness check is not accurate. The readiness check could possibly have identified the problem that the complainant encountered when trying to launch the tests.
**15.** The Ombudsman therefore finds that EPSO has provided a reasonable reply, and that it would serve no useful purpose to inquire further into the complaint.
**16.** This inquiry nonetheless highlighted that EPSO could have communicated more clearly with the complainant regarding his complaint[\[15\]](#_ftn15){#_ftnref15}. The Ombudsman will continue to monitor how EPSO implements the conclusions and suggestions from the various Ombudsman inquiries regarding remote testing, which include how EPSO communicates with candidates.
Conclusion
----------
Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion[\[16\]](#_ftn16){#_ftnref16}:
**No further inquiries are justified.**
The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision**.**
Tina Nilsson
Head of the Case-handling Unit
Strasbourg, 17/07/2024
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1){#_ftn1} <https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/job-opportunities/assistants-field-occupational-health-and-safety>
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2){#_ftn2} Tests are taken by candidates remotely, through a dedicated application <https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/help/faq/9177>
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3){#_ftn3} The reasoning tests are composed of verbal, numerical and abstract reasoning tests.
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4){#_ftn4} In the context of remote testing, security checks are carried out to verify, for instance, that the area in which candidates are sitting the tests complies with the instructions.
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5){#_ftn5} The system no longer recognised the user name and password shared prior to the tests.
[\[6\]](#_ftnref6){#_ftn6} The instructions set out details about remote testing and contain a section about reporting technical issues. The instructions are shared with the candidates ahead of the tests but they are not available to the candidates during the test itself.
[\[7\]](#_ftnref7){#_ftn7} Proctors are employees of EPSO's contractor, who are in charge of monitoring the tests and providing assistance to candidates that experience issues during the tests.
[\[8\]](#_ftnref8){#_ftn8} Candidates may contact the helpdesk by using a chat available on the contractor's website.
[\[9\]](#_ftnref9){#_ftn9} A number that EPSO stated corresponds to a written record of an incident.
[\[10\]](#_ftnref10){#_ftn10} A feature available in the test application, enabling candidates to chat with the contractor's employees performing security checks and/or the proctor monitoring the tests.
[\[11\]](#_ftnref11){#_ftn11} OI/1/2023/VS [https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/63317](/en/case/en/63317)
[\[12\]](#_ftnref12){#_ftn12} According to the instructions, this essentially entailed the following actions steps: 1) carrying out a system readiness check, 2) downloading the test application, and 3) launching a demonstration test (the 'mock exam').
{#_ftn13}
[\[14\]](#_ftnref14){#_ftn14} See 858/2023/VS [https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/63919](/en/case/en/63919)
[\[15\]](#_ftnref15){#_ftn15} For instance, regarding the reference to the 'chat'. The complainant genuinely did not seem to understand that EPSO was referring to the chat with the online technical support, not the chat in the test application.
[\[16\]](#_ftnref16){#_ftn16} This complaint has been dealt with under delegated case handling, in accordance with [the Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions](/en/legal-basis/implementing-provisions/en#hl10)