Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1]

The background to the complaint

1. The complainant was a candidate in competition X and sat the computer based tests (CBT) on Z 2010 in the PROMETRIC testing centre in Y ('the Centre').

2. He arrived at the Centre half an hour before the scheduled starting time of the tests. He was allowed to start the tests immediately upon his arrival and was seated at a computer near the door of the examination room. Unlike the rest of the computers in the room, the complainant's computer was not in a booth.

3. Once the complainant started the test, he was disrupted by the gradual arrival of new candidates and their interaction with the PROMETRIC staff at the door. During the break, the complainant requested to be moved to a different computer. However, it was not possible to grant his request because it was not possible to restart the test on another computer once the test had commenced. The PROMETRIC staff informed the complainant that he could consider sending a complaint to EPSO and requesting new dates to retake the tests.

4. The complainant addressed a complaint to PROMETRIC on that same day, explaining the disadvantageous conditions in which he had taken the tests and how they had affected his performance. He requested EPSO to set new dates for him to retake the tests. PROMETRIC replied the following day, informing the complainant that the correspondence would be forwarded to EPSO.

5. On 31 May 2010, EPSO replied explaining that, due to the high number of candidates in this open competition, it had been necessary to increase the capacity of the testing centres at relatively short notice. It informed the complainant that his comments would be taken into consideration by PROMETRIC in order to improve the testing environment in the future.

6. On 8 June 2010, not being satisfied with EPSO's reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

7. On 24 June 2010, EPSO informed the complainant of his results in the CBT tests which were not sufficient to qualify him for the further stage of the competition.

The subject matter of the inquiry

8. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant made the following allegation and claim:

Allegation:

EPSO failed to ensure proper test conditions in the testing centre in Luxembourg, which adversely affected his performance.

Claim:

EPSO should allow him to retake the tests under better conditions.

The inquiry

9. On 8 June 2010, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman. On 2 July 2010, the Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to EPSO with a request for an opinion. He did not specify a date by which EPSO should send the opinion, but asked it to do so within such a time period as would allow the complainant to take part in the further stage of the competition, in the event EPSO were able to satisfy his claim. On 28 September 2010, EPSO sent its opinion rejecting the complainant’s claim. The opinion was then forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations. The complainant sent his observations on 3 November 2010.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. Alleged failure by EPSO to ensure proper test conditions in the testing centre in Luxembourg and related claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

10. The complainant argued that the circumstances in which he had to take the tests prevented him from concentrating and performing adequately. He explained that he had had to share with another candidate the table at which he had been placed and that their computers were not separated by panels, as was the case with the rest of the computers in the room.

11. In addition, his computer was located very close to the door, which meant that he was disrupted every time a new candidate arrived. The complainant pointed out that, because he was the first candidate to start the test, the door opened and closed regularly while he was trying to complete the test. In addition, he had to listen to conversations between the candidates and the PROMETRIC staff that accompanied them to their seats.

12. In its opinion, EPSO informed the Ombudsman that, on 6 July 2010, that is, after the Ombudsman had opened his inquiry, the complainant contacted EPSO once again and reminded it of the problems he had faced during the tests. EPSO replied on 14 September 2010, pointing out that all the examination centres respect EPSO's requirements. Among such requirements is the one providing that the persons in charge of supervising the tests be duly trained to perform their tasks without disturbing the candidates. This requirement was complied with in the complainant’s case. Moreover, the candidates who were coming into the examination room were advised that they should remain silent. Finally, ear plugs were available for all candidates. EPSO concluded in its reply that all candidates' comments would be taken into account in order to improve the procedure and conditions of the tests in the future, such as ensuring that panels are installed between all computers.

13. EPSO rejected the complainant’s claim and did not agree with his allegation. It argued that, in the Centre in Y, although eight new seats where added to those foreseen in the first place, these were set according to the standard rules, with a space of 60 to 80 centimetres between them. Each table had a minimum allowed size and was fully equipped with a computer, calculator and earplugs. The same standard conditions were ensured in all other CBT centres located in the 27 EU Member States.

14. EPSO also noted that the number of candidates that passed the competition in the Centre in Y was above average when compared with other centres. The Centre in Y actually ranked 24th out of all 67 centres in terms of the number of successful candidates. This proved that the conditions under which the candidates in that centre, including the complainant, sat the tests were not such that they could have negatively influenced their respective performances.

15. EPSO finally reiterated that the candidates' comments made in the survey that EPSO was carrying out regarding the different aspects of the CBT, including the conditions in which candidates take the tests, had now been analysed with an eye to better ensuring the needs of candidates in future competitions.

16. In his observations, the complainant noted that EPSO’s arguments were based on general facts and statistical data regarding the examination centre. They showed no care for the specific circumstances in which he had had to take the test. He expressed his disappointed with EPSO's apparent lack of interest in his situation.

17. The complainant also pointed out that he had taken the tests for three other competitions in the same centre in Y and had never faced these problems. This fact was noticeable in the results of his other tests, which were considerably higher than the ones in question.

The Ombudsman's assessment

18. At the outset, the Ombudsman points out that EPSO did not deny the complainant's description of the conditions in which he had to sit the tests.

19. EPSO did not refer to these specific conditions, but argued in general terms that the conditions in the Centre in Y complied with EPSO’s requirements and could not have had a negative impact on the complainant’s performance because those same conditions had not affected other candidates (EPSO referred to statistical data in this regard).

20. The Ombudsman agrees with the complainant that EPSO's above stance on his complaint is highly disappointing.

21. First, the Ombudsman takes the view that the conditions under which the complainant was examined during the first 30 minutes of the tests were objectively improper and could have reasonably disrupted his performance.

22. Even if the PROMTERIC staff had complied with the requirement to be silent and avoided speaking to candidates who were gradually coming into the examination room, the fact remains that the door was constantly being opened in the close proximity of the complainant’s computer during the first 30 minutes of his examination. This is obviously a disruptive factor, especially at the beginning of a computer-based test when one has to get used to the test structure as well as concentrate on answering the questions correctly and rapidly.

23. The Ombudsman therefore does not understand why, if the complainant was allowed to take the tests 30 minutes before the other candidates started and thus when the examination room was empty, he was placed near the door. Offering him earplugs instead of placing the complainant well away from the door was not a reasonable solution.

24. In addition, the fact that other candidates performed well is irrelevant for the problems identified by the complainant. These other candidates were not placed near the door and did not start the tests when the remaining candidates were still coming into the examination room.

25. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that the complainant's perfectly understandable initial feelings of agitation, caused by the disruptive conditions of the examination room, could not have just disappeared when the door was finally closed and all the candidates had sat down to take the tests.

26. Finally, it appears that the place assigned to the complainant was one of the eight added to the normal capacity of the Centre because of the high number of candidates. According to the complainant (something that, again, was not contested by EPSO), this place was different from the standard places because it had no panel separating two candidates working at the same table. It follows that the conditions for all candidates sitting in the same examination room were not equal.

27. The Ombudsman concludes that EPSO’s readiness to improve the conditions of the computer test centres deserves to be praised. It is however unfair to use the complainant’s individual case as a justification for the above improvement, but not to resolve it.

28. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that EPSO failed to ensure proper conditions for the complainant to sit the tests. It would therefore have been fair for EPSO to have allowed him to sit the tests again. EPSO failed to do so and this constitutes an instance of maladministration.

29. According to EPSO's webpage, the competition in question is still ongoing. It therefore still appears possible for EPSO to make good the above instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman thus makes a corresponding draft recommendation below.

B. The draft recommendation

On the basis of his inquiries into this complaint, the Ombudsman makes the following draft recommendation to EPSO:

EPSO should make it possible for the complainant to take the tests again.

EPSO and the complainant will be informed of this draft recommendation. In accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman, EPSO shall send a detailed opinion by 28 February 2011. The detailed opinion could consist of the acceptance of the draft recommendation and a description of how it has been implemented.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 14 January 2011

---

[1] Decision of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom), OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15.