The background to the complaint

1. The complainant applied for Open Competition EPSO/AST/111/10, which the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) organised in order to draw up a reserve list from which to recruit assistants in the secretarial field.

2. She successfully sat the admission tests (Computer-Based Tests) and was invited to take part in the assessment centre exercises. The assessment exercises consisted of four tests, namely, two tests aimed at assessing the candidates' general competencies, and two tests aimed at evaluating the candidates' job specific knowledge. The specific knowledge tests included (a) a practical test involving the preparation and/or processing of an MS Word document, and (b) a practical test aimed at assessing drafting skills (particularly spelling, syntax and grammar).

3. Subsequently, EPSO informed the complainant that it could not include her name on the list of successful candidates because she did not obtain the required pass mark in practical test a).

4. The complainant requested EPSO i) to review her application, and ii) to provide her with copies of her specific knowledge tests a) and b).

5. On 14 November 2012, EPSO provided the complainant with the documents requested and confirmed her marks in the specific knowledge tests. It also informed the complainant that it had provided her with a complete copy of these tests. 

6. On 16 November 2012, the complainant wrote to EPSO. She pointed out that the copy of her practical test a) (requiring the preparation and/or processing of an MS Word document) was incomplete because one page was missing. In her view, EPSO lost this page. The complainant also asked EPSO about the means of redress available to her.

7. On the same day, EPSO replied and advised the complainant to refer to section 6.4 of the Guide to open competitions as regards the available means of redress.

8. On 19 November 2012, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The subject matter of the inquiry

9. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant submitted the following allegation and claim.

Allegation

EPSO failed to (i) properly review the complainant's practical test a)[1], and (ii) provide her with a complete copy of this test.

Claim

EPSO should review her practical test a). 

The inquiry

10. On 4 December 2012, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked EPSO, as a first step of the inquiry, for an inspection of the relevant file.

11. On 25 January 2013, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the European Ombudsman's Statute[2], the Ombudsman's services carried out an inspection of the relevant documents in EPSO's file. EPSO considered the inspected documents to be confidential[3]. This meant that the public and the complainant could not have access to them.

12. The Ombudsman forwarded a copy of the inspection report to the complainant and invited her to submit observations on it. She did so on 19 February 2013.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. Alleged failure to review the complainant's practical test and provide her with a complete copy of this test

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

13. In support of her allegation, the complainant argued that EPSO could not properly review her practical test a) because it had lost one page of her test.

14. In the course of the Ombudsman's inspection of the file, an EPSO representative explained that, at the end of each written test, the candidates themselves print out the written exam papers (in the presence of EPSO representatives). Afterwards, candidates write their names and sign each page of their written exam papers at the back. They also add their candidate numbers.

15. In her observations on the inspection report, the complainant reiterated that there was one page missing of her test a). In this respect, she explained that she had inserted a cover page with a header of the Word document to be processed. This page had been printed out at the end of her test a), but does not appear in the copy of the test sent to her by EPSO.

The Ombudsman's assessment

16. The Ombudsman notes that practical test a) was a standard test, which involved the preparation and the processing of an MS Word document.

17. In the course of the inspection of the file, an EPSO representative confirmed that all candidates received the same MS Word document to process (i.e., having the same number of pages). Moreover, EPSO submitted evidence to show that the MS Word document provided to all candidates had the same content and number of pages.

18. On the basis of his inspection of the file, the Ombudsman has no reason to question EPSO's position that no page is missing from the complainant's test a). In this respect, the complainant's test has the same number of pages as the general exam test given to all candidates, and EPSO provided her with a complete copy of her practical test. Moreover, there was no evidence to indicate that the complainant's test a) contained an additional page.

19. Finally, on the basis of the evidence examined in the course of the present inquiry, including the confidential documents inspected, which related to the markers' and the Selection Board's assessment of the complainant's written test a), the Ombudsman considers that it cannot be concluded that the Selection Board's assessment of the complainant's written test a) was tainted by a manifest error.

20. In light of foregoing, the Ombudsman does not find an instance of maladministration in relation to this case. Although the explanation EPSO provided in the course of the inspection of the file as to how it ensures that the Selection Board and/or the markers receive copies of the candidates' written tests in their entirety and that pages are not lost is satisfactory, the Ombudsman suggests that, in the future, EPSO could, at the end of each written test, ask each candidate to include by hand, in each page of the examination script, in addition to his or her name, signature and candidate number, the page number and the total number of pages (for example, '1/7' on the first page of a script made up of 7 pages).

B. Conclusions

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

There has been no instance of maladministration.

The complainant and the EPSO will be informed of this decision.

Further remark

In the future, EPSO could, at the end of each written test, ask each candidate to include by hand, in each page of the examination script, in addition to his or her name, signature and candidate number, the page number and the total number of pages (for example, '1/7' on the first page of a script made up of 7 pages).

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 2 May 2013