Background to the complaint

1. The complainant participated in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of ICT security that was organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)[1]. He passed the eligibility check and the ‘talent screener’ phase of the selection procedure and was thus invited to the assessment centre phase of the selection procedure.

2. The assessment centre took place in summer 2017 and included computer-based reasoning tests (CBT), that is, a verbal, a numerical and an abstract reasoning test.

3. In October 2017, EPSO informed the complainant about the Selection Board’s decision not to place his name on the reserve list of successful candidates, because he had failed to obtain the necessary pass mark in the verbal reasoning test[2]. EPSO provided the complainant with an overview of the replies he had given, and the correct replies.

4. The complainant then asked EPSO to review his verbal reasoning test results. He also asked EPSO to give him access to the verbal reasoning questions “in order to establish whether material errors have occurred during the correction of [his] verbal reasoning” test.

5. EPSO replied to the complainant that it considered his test results to be correct and his own.

6. Dissatisfied with EPSO’s reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman on 6 November 2017.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s position that EPSO was wrong not to review and validate his results in the verbal reasoning test.

8. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team duly considered the information provided in the complaint.

EPSO’s decision not to review and validate the complainant’s test results

Arguments made by the parties

9. The complainant based his request for review on the following grounds: (i) EPSO has communicated incorrect test results to candidates in the past, (ii) a candidate whose name was placed on the reserve list had, by mistake, taken on an absent candidate’s role in the group exercise of the assessment centre and thus should not be on the reserve list, (iii) there were inconsistencies and translation errors in the verbal reasoning questions, and (iv) candidates did not receive the same verbal reasoning questions and, as emerged from discussions with other candidates, the level of difficulty of the verbal reasoning questions was not the same for all candidates.

10. EPSO argued that the complainant’s test results had been verified, approved and validated by the Selection Board before they had been communicated to him. EPSO therefore considered that they reflected the complainant’s performance accurately.

11. Regarding the complainant’s request for access to the exact wording of questions of the verbal reasoning test, EPSO informed him that it would not disclose the questions, since they will be used in other selection procedures. EPSO considered it sufficient that it had provided the complainant with the grid referring to the correct answer for each question as well as to his answers.

12. EPSO also pointed out that, according to the applicable rules, the complainant should have asked for a review of those questions that he found to be erroneous, ill-drafted or ambiguous within 10 calendar days of the test.

The Ombudsman's assessment

13. EPSO’s general rules governing selection procedures state that candidates may request a review of a decision establishing their results, which determines whether or not they can proceed to the next stage of a selection procedure. However, a request for review must be based on a material irregularity in the selection procedure and/or non-compliance, by the Selection Board or EPSO, with the selection procedure’s legal framework[3]. The request for review must also clearly explain what the grounds are for contesting the decision.

14. The reasons put forward by the complainant to challenge the Selection Board’s decision on his verbal reasoning test results concern neither a material irregularity in the selection procedure, nor non-compliance with the legal rules governing the selection procedure. The complainant’s request does not, therefore, qualify as a request for review.

15. The fact that EPSO might have previously, in this or any other selection procedure, communicated incorrect test results does not, in itself, indicate that any error might have occurred with regard to the complainant’s verbal reasoning test. This argument would allow any candidate to challenge any decision taken in a selection procedure without having to argue, or substantiate, that a mistake actually occurred regarding his/her test results.

16. The organisation of the group exercise does also not have any bearing on the complainant’s results in the verbal reasoning test.[4]

17. Regarding possible inconsistencies and/or translation errors in the verbal reasoning questions, EPSO correctly stated that the complainant should have challenged those within 10 days of the test[5]. However, he chose not to do so.

18. It is part of the CBT test design that candidates do not receive the exact same questions[6], but that they get questions from a pool of questions that have been validated by the Selection Board. The Selection Board decides on the level of difficulty for each selection procedure, which is thus the same for all candidates in a given procedure. The complainant’s impression that the level of difficulty of the questions varied between candidates is his subjective view and does not suggest any irregularity in the selection procedure.

19. The Selection Board had verified, approved and validated the complainant’s test results before EPSO communicated the results to him. In the absence of any indication that an error might have occurred with regard to the complainant’s verbal reasoning test score, it was reasonable for EPSO not to forward the request for review to the Selection Board.

20. According to the applicable rules[7] and EU case-law[8], EPSO does not have to release any test questions as they are covered by the secrecy of the Selection Board’s proceedings.

21. There was thus no maladministration in how EPSO dealt with the complainant’s request.

Conclusion

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

There was no maladministration by the European Personnel Selection Office.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

Tina Nilsson

Head of Inquiries - Unit 4

Strasbourg, 02/05/2018

 

[1] Selection procedure EPSO/AD/331/16 - 4; the notice of competition is available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2016:447A:FULL&from=EN

[2] The complainant scored 9 out of 20 points, while the pass mark was set at 10 points.

[3] See Point 6.4. of the general rules governing open competitions, Annex III to the notice of competition in selection procedure EPSO/AD/331/16 - 4, fn 1 above.

[4] As the complainant did not obtain the required pass mark in the verbal reasoning test, that is, the required minimum number of points, he was automatically excluded from the selection procedure.

[5] Errors in CBT questions can be challenged through the so-called ‘neutralisation procedure’, see Point 6.3. of the general rules governing open competitions, fn 1 above.

[6] See https://epso.europa.eu/help/faq/2796_en?category=498.

[7] See Article 6 of Annex III of the EU Staff Regulations and Point 5.5. of the general rules governing open competitions, fn 1 above.

[8] See, for example, judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015, Alexandrou v Commission, T-515/14 P and T-516/14 P, ECLI:EU:T:2015:844, paragraphs 80 and 84.