Background to the complaint

1. The complainant was a candidate in a Contract Agent Selection Tool (CAST) procedure for recruiting project managers, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)[1]. The selection procedure included tests conducted by remote testing[2]. EPSO uses a contractor to host and oversee these tests.

2. On 26 April 2023, the complainant was scheduled to sit the tests. According to the complainant, prior to the tests, she followed the applicable instructions for remote testing[3] and conducted the necessary technical checks. However, on the day of the tests, she experienced technical difficulties and could not connect to the test application, and could not sit the tests. On the same day, the complainant tried to resolve the matter by contacting EPSO’s contractor and EPSO, and asked for her tests to be rescheduled.

3. On 27 April 2023, EPSO replied to the complainant stating that it had verified the technical logs, which showed she had not completed the necessary prior technical check (notably the ‘demonstration test’). As such, EPSO dismissed the complaint stating that the instructions for remote testing made clear that candidates were obliged to complete the ‘mandatory readiness check’, including the demonstration test.

4. Dissatisfied with EPSO’s reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The inquiry

5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how EPSO had handled the complaint and sought clarification on the requirement to complete the technical check.

6. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received EPSO’s reply on which the complainant did not provide comments.

EPSO’s reply

7. EPSO said that it requires candidates to carry out a technical check of their computer in order to verify whether their operating systems are up to date, that the device is suitable for the exam, and to detect potential problems. EPSO said that, when a candidate does not complete that check, it considers that any problems that occur during the tests are the sole responsibility of the candidate.

7. EPSO provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the ‘session log’ regarding the complainant’s technical check. According to EPSO, the log shows that the complainant completed the ‘system check’ but not the demonstration test.

The Ombudsman's assessment

8. The CAST instructions required candidates to finalise a mandatory technical check (‘enhanced system readiness check’) by a certain deadline. According to the instructions, this essentially entailed the following steps: 1) carrying out a system readiness check, 2) downloading the test application, and 3) launching a demonstration test. The demonstration test consisted of two more actions - downloading the application installer again and launching the application from the candidate’s desktop and then following the onscreen prompts, including clicking on ‘check my system’ in order to complete a new system check. The instructions also clearly stated that candidates who had not done the technical check, including step 3, and who experienced technical issues at the day of the test, would not be given an opportunity to re-sit their tests.

9. According to the available technical data, which the Ombudsman is not in a position to question, the complainant did not complete step 3 of the technical check. As such, it does not seem unreasonable that EPSO dismissed the complaint, as the complainant had not completed the technical check.

10. In the context of the Ombudsman’s own-initiative inquiry into EPSO’s use of remote testing, EPSO clarified that it had subsequently removed the technical check but intended to reintroduce it in future selection procedures.[4] The Ombudsman trusts that EPSO will ensure the user-friendliness of any reintroduced technical check to ensure minimal risk of a situation such as in this case, where a candidate believes that they have done the technical check when in fact this is not the case. The Ombudsman will continue to monitor whether and how EPSO uses a technical check in future selection procedures.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion[5]:

There was no maladministration in how EPSO replied to the complaint.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

Tina Nilsson
Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg, 03/07/2024

 

[1] https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/Cast-Permanent

[2] Tests are taken by candidates remotely, through a dedicated application.

[3] The instructions set out details about remote testing and contain a section about reporting technical issues. They are shared with the candidates ahead of the test but they are not available to the candidates during the test itself.

[4] See on p. 9 of OI/1/2023/VS meeting report: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/inspection-report/en/180852

[5] This complaint has been dealt with under delegated case handling, in accordance with the Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions