The background

1. In 2011, the complainant participated in an Open Competition for the selection of staff in the field of statistics[1]. After having sat the admission tests[2], he complained to EPSO that certain questions he received in the multiple-choice verbal and abstract reasoning tests were erroneous or inaccurate, since no correct answer could be chosen from the four possible answers proposed. When EPSO refused the complainant's request to review the allegedly erroneous questions, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

2. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received the opinion of EPSO on the complaint. The complainant did not submit observations on it.  

Alleged failure of EPSO to verify the accuracy of the test questions

The Ombudsman's findings and the friendly solution proposal

3. After having carefully examined the complainant's arguments and EPSO's opinion on the complaint, the Ombudsman noted that EPSO refused to review the allegedly erroneous questions on the basis that the complainant's request was formulated in general terms. EPSO argued that this was in line with the established case-law of the EU courts. The Ombudsman, however, found that the case-law referred to by EPSO dated back to 2001. EPSO reformed the structure of open competitions in 2009. Prior to that reform, candidates were allowed, after having sat pre-selection tests composed of multiple-choice questions, to take the multiple-choice test papers with them after the tests. However, since the 2009 reform, this is no longer possible. Candidates are even strictly forbidden from taking notes during the computer-based pre-selection tests (CBTs).

4. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considered that the right of candidates to request a review of their answers could be rendered ineffectual if candidates were required not only to identify the erroneous questions, but also to specify precisely the reasons why they considered the question to be erroneous.

5. In light of the above, and in line with the Ombudsman's mission to seek fair outcomes to complaints that satisfy both the complainant and the institution concerned, she made the following proposal for a friendly solution:

EPSO could request the Selection Board to verify the allegedly erroneous test questions identified by the complainant.

6. In its reply, EPSO accepted the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution proposal. It explained that, in view of the difficulty of reconvening a selection board long after the publication of the reserve list[3], it asked a panel of three experienced permanent selection board members to examine the contested questions. The panel carefully examined the questions concerned and came to the unanimous conclusion, for all the questions concerned, that the answer given by the complainant was indeed wrong, and that the multiple-choice answers contained a correct answer. The panel also provided a brief explanation as to why this was so.

7. The complainant did not submit any observations.

The Ombudsman's assessment after the friendly solution proposal

8. The Ombudsman notes that EPSO has taken steps to verify that the questions challenged by the complainant were not defective. She accepts EPSO's arguments that it would have been difficult to reconvene a selection board long after the publication of the reserve list. She notes, however, that these questions have now been re-examined by qualified persons, who have confirmed that the questions were not defective. She thus considers that EPSO has given appropriate effect to the proposal for a friendly solution.

Conclusion

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

EPSO has accepted the proposal for a friendly solution.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

Done in Strasbourg on 15 July 2014