The background to the complaint

1. The complainant, a United Kingdom resident, participated in Open Competition EPSO/AD/207/11 for administrators in the field of "Audit". He validated his application on 13 April 2011. The next step in this competition was to book the date and place for the computer-based test ('CBT'). It is useful to note at the outset that the United Kingdom is in the Greenwich mean time (GMT) zone, whereas Brussels, where EPSO is based, is in the Central European time (CET) zone. CET is one hour ahead of GMT.

2. The complainant received the following news feed via his EPSO account: "You can book your CBT test from 20/04/2011 to 26/04/2011 12:00. For additional information about these Computer Based tests please read carefully the attached communication. ... If you miss the deadline your application will be considered as withdrawn and your participation in this competition/selection will end. During the competition or selection procedure process it is your responsibility to consult your EPSO account at least twice a week to check the information relevant to your application."

3. On 26 April 2011 at 11:25 GMT, the complainant logged into his account and tried to book the CBT. A note on his EPSO account informed him that this was no longer possible.

4. On the same day, the complainant wrote to EPSO requesting authorisation to book his CBT. He explained that the booking period coincided with the Easter break at the office for which he worked and that the office was closed from 21 until 26 April 2011. The complainant stressed that the information he received on the booking period did not specify a time zone. In his view, candidates from the GMT zone were thus treated unequally. Finally, he pointed out that a reminder had been sent to candidates participating in all other competitions organised by EPSO, but not to those taking part in Competition EPSO/AD/207/11.

5. EPSO replied on 3 May 2011. It pointed out that, shortly after the validation, an on-screen notice alerted the complainant to the fact that a link that would enable him to book the CBT would be added to his account within 48 hours and that he should respond to that link rapidly, as the booking period was limited in time. The login history showed that the complainant only read the letter informing him of the booking period on 26 April 2011 at 12:28 CET, that is, after the booking period had closed. Prior to that date, he only accessed his account on 14 April 2011, even though EPSO's Guide to Competitions[1] instructs candidates to check their accounts at least twice a week. EPSO further indicated that the letter informing the complainant about the booking period specified that the booking deadline was 12:00 noon CET. Consequently, EPSO rejected the complainant's request to allow him to book a CBT.

6. On 18 May 2011, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman.

The subject matter of the inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the following allegation and claim:

Allegation:

EPSO wrongly excluded the complainant from competition EPSO/AD/207/11. In support of his allegation, the complainant put forward that: (i) the CBT had to be booked during the Easter break (21-25 April) and the period to do so was very short; (ii) no reminder was sent to him, and (iii) EPSO failed to specify that the applicable time zone for the booking deadline was CET[2].

Claim:

EPSO should specify which time-zone is applicable in the CBT booking deadline and allow the complainant to book a CBT.

The inquiry

8. On 28 June 2011, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked EPSO for its opinion on the complaint. The Ombudsman also asked EPSO whether it could provide evidence to show that the letter informing the complainant of the booking period specified CET as the applicable time zone.

9. On 14 September 2011, EPSO submitted its opinion which was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations.

10. The complainant did not provide any observations by the relevant deadline.

11. On 14 December 2011, the Ombudsman's services unsuccessfully attempted to contact the complainant. They left a message on his answering machine, asking whether he still intended to submit observations and to pursue his case. However, the complainant did not react to this communication.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. Alleged incorrect exclusion of the complainant from the relevant competition and related claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

12. The complainant alleged that EPSO wrongly excluded him from the competition. In support of his allegation, he argued that (i) the CBT was to be booked during the Easter break (21-25 April) and the period to do so was very short; (ii) no reminder had been sent to him, and (iii) EPSO failed to specify that the applicable time zone for booking was CET. He claimed that EPSO should specify which time zone is applicable to the CBT booking deadline and allow him to book a CBT.

13. In its opinion, EPSO emphasised that, following the Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry OI/9/2010/RT, it had changed its approach to competitions and introduced the "new procedure". As soon as candidates validate their application, EPSO sends an e-mail informing them about the booking period. A candidate who validates very early can thus be one of the first to book a test date. Therefore, the deadlines vary depending on the validation date. While some candidates may have already sat their CBT, other candidates might still be at the registration phase. In any case, every candidate has exactly the same amount of time to book a test. EPSO added that it improved its communications with candidates by instructing the contractor responsible for the tests to send reminder letters 24 hours before the deadline for booking. EPSO submitted that a letter informing the complainant that his application had been validated and inviting him to book a date for the CBT between 20 April and 26 April 2011 (12:00 midday CET), was published on his account on 13 April 2011. The relevant time zone had been indicated in this letter.

14. It further stated that, although the complainant logged into his account on 14 April at 12:22, he did not read the letter dated 13 April 2011 until 26 April at 12:28 CET, that is, after the deadline for booking the CBT had passed. EPSO put forward that the tests can be booked 24 hours a day from any Internet connection. Thus, the fact that the booking period fell within the Easter holidays did not affect the accessibility of the booking system. EPSO stressed that the Guide to Competitions clearly states that it is the candidates' responsibility to check their EPSO account at least twice a week. In addition, it reiterated that a reminder message had been sent to the e-mail address the candidate had provided in his application. This message informed him that he had not yet booked a test. In the absence of any connectivity problems, EPSO maintained its decision not to extend the deadline for booking. EPSO stressed that it had respected all procedures and had informed every candidate in good time about the booking procedure.

The Ombudsman's assessment

15. As regards the complainant's first argument, according to which the booking period for the CBT was too short and coincided with the Easter holidays at his office, the Ombudsman notes that EPSO explained that candidates are informed of the booking period for the CBT as soon as they validate their application. EPSO added that, although different booking periods applied, every candidate had, depending on the date of validation, the same number of days at its disposal for booking the CBT. Bearing in mind that competitions should also be processed rapidly, the Ombudsman considers that the period of time that was available to the complainant in order to book his CBT was not unreasonable as such. He also notes that the complainant was in the same situation as other candidates in this regard. Given that the booking period is determined on the basis of the date of validation, the fact that this period coincided with the Easter period in this case was a consequence of the complainant's choice of date for validating his application. Although the complainant put forward that his office was closed during the Easter holidays, there is nothing to suggest that he was unable to access the Internet and, therefore, his EPSO account, from a place outside his office.

16. In reply to the complainant's second argument, according to which EPSO did not send him a reminder, EPSO stressed that it did send an e-mail reminder to the e-mail address the complainant had provided in his application form. The complainant did not challenge this statement.

17. As regards the complainant's third argument, according to which EPSO failed to specify that the applicable time zone was CET, the Ombudsman notes that the news feed that the complainant received indeed did not mention the applicable time zone for the booking period. However, it emerges from the information made available to the Ombudsman that, on 13 April 2011, that is, on the day when the complainant validated his application, EPSO made available on the complainant's EPSO account a letter which stated that the complainant was invited to book his CBT between 20 April and 26 April 2011 (12:00 midday CET). The Ombudsman notes that this letter clearly indicated the applicable time zone. It is thus indisputable that EPSO did provide the relevant information in the complainant's EPSO account.

18. In the Ombudsman's view, it is not unreasonable for EPSO to expect that a candidate will take the necessary steps to check the information it provides in relation to the booking procedure, especially since candidates are expressly alerted to the fact that failure to book a date for the CBT in time would result in the application being considered withdrawn.

19. In view of the above, the Ombudsman finds that the complainant did not demonstrate that EPSO committed maladministration in so far as his allegation is concerned.

20. In cases where no maladministration is found, the Ombudsman may nevertheless still identify opportunities to raise the overall quality of administrative behaviour in the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the EU.

21. In this context, the Ombudsman recalls that the first sentence of the news feed that the complainant received was worded as follows: "You can book your CBT test from 20/04/2011 to 26/04/2011 12:00. For additional information about these Computer Based tests please read carefully the attached communication". In view of this wording, it cannot entirely be excluded that the complainant may have misunderstood the relevant message as meaning that the "attached communication" contained information about the CBT itself, rather than the period during which he had to book his CBT. It would thus have been better to clarify that this communication also contained information on the booking period. Alternatively, the fact that the times indicated in the news feed were based on Central European time could usefully have been mentioned in that news feed itself. The Ombudsman will therefore make a further remark in this regard.

B. Conclusion

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

No maladministration was found in this case.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

Further remark

It would be useful, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings, if EPSO could review the manner in which it informs candidates of the time period during which they must book a date for the computer-based test.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 30 May 2012

---

[1] Point 3.1 of EPSO's Guide to Open Competitions (OJ 2010 C 184 A, p.1) reads as follows: "It is up to you to consult your EPSO account at regular intervals — at least twice a week — to keep track of the progress of the competition and to check the information relevant to your application".

[2] It appears useful to point out that, even though the complainant mentioned in his letter of 26 April 2011 to EPSO that his office was closed from 21 until 26 April 2011, he submitted in his complaint to the Ombudsman that the Easter break at his workplace lasted from 21 to 25 April 2011.