Strasbourg, 6 December 2006

Dear Mr X,

On 18 February 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Personnel Selection Office concerning your complaint, submitted to EPSO on 21 December 2005, and the organisation of Open Competition EPSO CAST 25 EN.

On 7 March 2006, I forwarded your complaint to the Director of EPSO. EPSO sent its opinion on 8 June 2006 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations if you so wished, by 15 July 2006. No observations have been received from you.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant, a Polish national, participated in Open Competition EPSO CAST 25 EN, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office ("EPSO") for future contractual agents. On 21 December 2005, after having sat the selection tests, the complainant wrote to EPSO to complain about the conditions of the tests, namely, that the on-line calculator, which was provided to the candidates by EPSO, did not work during the tests. Although the invigilators allowed the complainant to use his own calculator, he had not been able to concentrate on his tests because of the frustration that this incident caused him. He therefore wished to obtain information about how he could appeal against the results of the selection tests or complain about the incident.

On 21 December 2005, EPSO acknowledged the receipt of the complainant's complaint and stated that EPSO would analyse it after the last day of the tests and that it would contact the complainant in January 2006.

Not having received any reply, the complainant sent a reminder e-mail to EPSO on 15 January 2006.

On 18 February 2006, the complainant made the present complaint to the European Ombudsman. In his complaint, the complainant alleged that:

(1) EPSO has failed to reply to his complaint submitted on 21 December 2005.

(2) Open Competition EPSO CAST 25 EN was not sufficiently transparent and well organised (in particular the time-limits for registration and examination results, as well as the date for replying to his letter of 21 December 2005, have not been respected).

THE INQUIRY

EPSO's opinion

In its opinion, EPSO made, in summary, the following comments:

EPSO first recalled the facts of the case:

In June 2005, EPSO launched Call for expression of interests - EPSO CAST 25 EN ("the Call") , aimed at creating a database of candidates to be recruited as contract staff to carry out various tasks in the European institutions. Candidates were required to create a so-called "EPSO Porta" and to register through it for Open Competition EPSO CAST 25 EN by 20 July 2005. In accordance with the procedure specified, the complainant registered by the set deadline and chose the profile "Function Group IV, adviser".

On 4 October 2005, candidates whose applications had been accepted were informed that they would be invited to take the selection tests, and that they would be asked to reserve a convenient date and time for taking these tests. The reservations could be made between 31 October and 18 November 2005.

On 17 October 2005, EPSO published the details of the state of play of the registrations made in response to the Call: over 32 000 applications had been received, and 20 300 candidates had been finally invited to take the selection tests.

On 27 October 2005, EPSO informed the candidates that the registration period to reserve dates for the selection tests had been postponed and would be suspended between 9 and 27 November 2005.

On 8 November 2005, the complainant informed EPSO that he had had difficulties in registering for the tests.

On 9 November 2005, through information posted on its "Latest News" website, EPSO informed all candidates who had experienced problems in reserving a date for the selection tests that its system had been overloaded and that all technical means of improving the situation were being examined.

On 11 November 2005, EPSO informed the candidates, again through its website, that, given the problems it had encountered, it had decided to stagger the reservation period for the different function groups. Candidates who had selected function group IV as the complainant did, could register for the tests as from 18 November 2005. On 15 November 2005, EPSO sent the same information to the candidates by e-mail.

On 21 December 2005, the complainant took the selection tests. On the same day, he informed EPSO by e-mail that the on-line calculator had not been working, and that although he had been allowed to use his own calculator, the situation had caused him a lot of frustration, which had affected his capacity to reply to all the questions.

On the same day, EPSO acknowledged the receipt of the complainant's e-mail and informed him that it would be examined after the last day of the tests and that he would be contacted again in January 2006.

On 15 January 2006, the complainant contacted EPSO again and stated that he was still waiting for a reply to his e-mail of 21 December 2005.

On 17 February 2006, EPSO informed the candidates via information published on its website that the test results would be published in the week of 27 February 2006. On 27 February 2006, EPSO informed the candidates via their EPSO Porta about the test results.

On 22 March 2006, EPSO sent an e-mail to the complainant in reply to his complaint of 21 December 2005. EPSO apologised for the late reply, and explained that it was due to the enormous number of messages that it had to deal with in that period. EPSO also informed the complainant that he had passed the verbal and numerical reasoning tests, and attached a table containing the complainant's replies, the correct answers, and the time he spent in replying to each question. EPSO also stated that the fact that the on-line calculator had not worked and thus the complainant had to use his own calculator did not appear to have had a negative effect on his performance.

On the substance of the complaint, EPSO made the following observations:

As regards EPSO's alleged failure to reply to the complainant's complaint of 21 December 2005, EPSO explained that the receipt of the complainant's complaint was acknowledged on the same day and that the complainant was informed that his complaint would be analysed after the last day of the tests. It was not possible to reply to the complainant until 22 March 2006, that is to say, until all the results of the selection tests had been obtained and examined. Given the problems encountered as a result of the faulty on-line calculator, the results of candidates who had been affected by this problem were examined very carefully. In the complainant's case, no failure was recorded. EPSO pointed out that, in its message of 22 March 2006, it informed the complainant that he had passed the selection tests and was therefore admitted to the second phase of the procedure. EPSO was aware of the delay concerning its reply to the complainant and it therefore wished to apologise for it, as it had already done in its reply of 22 March 2006 to him. EPSO added that however regrettable it may be, this delay was due to the extremely large number of messages that it had to deal with at the same time.

As regards the allegedly insufficient transparency of Open Competition EPSO CAST 25 EN, EPSO explained that, after the Call had been launched, numerous announcements were made in EPSO's "Latest News" website, in order to keep candidates informed of what stage had been reached in the recruitment procedure.

As regards the allegedly poor organisation of Open Competition EPSO CAST 25 EN, EPSO acknowledged that several candidates experienced difficulties when registering for the selection tests. Due to the fact that a large number of candidates sought to register on the first day of the reservation period, the IT system was overloaded and, consequently, EPSO was obliged to set up a "queuing" system, in order to limit the inconvenience caused by the fact that candidates were simultaneously accessing the registration system. However, this did not mean that the competition was poorly organised. EPSO pointed out that it had to address certain unforeseen circumstances brought about by the very large number of candidates and by the fact that many of them tried to register at once.

EPSO further pointed out the following, as regards the notification of the results of the selection tests: (i) On 13 January 2006, candidates were informed that the test results would shortly be published and that a system update would be necessary in order to download these results. As a consequence of this updating, the EPSO Porta would not be accessible from 16 January 2006 until the second half of February 2006. (ii) On 17 February 2006, candidates were informed that the tests results would be published in the week of 27 February 2006. (iii) On 27 February 2006, candidates were informed that the results of the tests had been posted on their EPSO Porta.

EPSO recalled that the selection tests took place between 28 November 2005 and 16 January 2006 in several examination centres in all the Member States. By 27 February 2006, all the selection test results had been obtained by EPSO and were communicated to the candidates on the same day. EPSO therefore considered that the time taken to notify candidates of the results was appropriate and reasonable.

The complainant's observations

No observations were received from the complainant by the date set for this purpose.

THE DECISION

1 The alleged failure by EPSO to reply to the complainant's complaint of 21 December 2005

1.1 The complainant participated in Open Competition EPSO CAST 25 EN, organised by European Personnel Selection Office ("EPSO") for future contractual agents. On 21 December 2005, after having sat the competition tests, the complainant wrote to EPSO to complain that the on-line calculator, which was provided to the candidates by EPSO, did not work during the tests. Although the invigilators allowed the complainant to use his own calculator, he had not been able to concentrate on his tests because of the frustration that this incident had caused him. He therefore wished to obtain information about how he could appeal the tests results or complain about the incident. On the same day, EPSO acknowledged the receipt of his e-mail and stated that it would analyse the complaint after the last day of the tests and that it would contact the complainant in January 2006. Not having received any reply, the complainant sent a reminder e-mail to EPSO on 15 January 2006. In his complaint of 18 February 20006 to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that EPSO had failed to reply to his complaint of 21 December 2005.

1.2 In its opinion, EPSO pointed out that it acknowledged the receipt of the complainant's complaint of 21 December 2005 on the same day, and, at the same time, informed the complainant that his complaint would be analysed after the last day of the tests. Therefore, it was not possible to reply to the complainant before 22 March 2006, that is to say, until all the results of the selection tests had been obtained and examined. Furthermore, the results of candidates who had been affected by the problem of the faulty on-line calculator, were examined very carefully. In the complainant's case, no failure was recorded. Finally, in its reply of 22 March 2006, EPSO informed the complainant that he had passed the selection tests and he was therefore admitted to the second phase of the procedure. In its opinion, EPSO apologised for the delay in replying to the complainant's complaint, which was due to the extremely large number of messages that it had had to deal with at the same time, and pointed out that it had also apologised to the complainant in its reply of 22 March 2006.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that Article 14 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour ("the Code") provides that "[e]very letter or complaint to the Institution shall receive an acknowledgement of receipt within a period of two weeks, except if a substantive reply can be sent within that period." The Ombudsman also notes that Article 17 of the Code provides that "[t]he official shall ensure that a decision on every request or complaint to the Institution is taken within a reasonable time-limit, without delay, and in any case no later than two months from the date of receipt."

1.4 The Ombudsman also notes that EPSO acknowledged the receipt of the complainant's complaint of 21 December 2005 on the same day, and stated that "we will store your complaint and we will analyze it after the last day for test. We will contact you during the month of January." The Ombudsman therefore considers that EPSO respected the time-limit for sending an acknowledgement of receipt, provided for under Article 14 of the Code. However, the Ombudsman also notes that EPSO only provided a substantial reply on 22 March 2006 to the complainant's complaint of 21 December 2005, which is beyond the time-limit of two months, provided for under Article 17 of the Code.

1.5 The Ombudsman nevertheless considers that EPSO provided a reasonable account of the events that led to the delay in providing a substantial reply to the complainant, and, in particular, an explanation that it could only deal with the complainant's complaint after the last day of the tests, which was 16 January 2006. The Ombudsman also notes that EPSO's substantial reply of 22 March 2006 had thoroughly addressed the issues raised by the complainant in his complaint of 21 December 2005. Furthermore, the Ombudsman notes that, in its reply of 22 March 2006, EPSO apologised, on two occasions, for the late reply to the complainant's complaint of 21 December 2005. In addition, in its opinion on the present complaint, EPSO expressed its regret for the delay.

1.6 In addition, the Ombudsman also notes that the complainant had successfully passed the selection tests. From the table containing the complainant's replies, the correct answers, and the time he spent in replying to each question, which had been attached to EPSO's reply of 22 March 2006 to the complainant, it appears that the fact that the on-line calculator was not working during the tests and that the complainant had thus to use his own calculator did not affect his performance in a manifestly negative way.

1.7 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman takes the view that there are no grounds for further inquiries as regards this aspect of the complaint.

2 The allegation that Open Competition EPSO CAST 25 EN was not sufficiently transparent and well organised

2.1 The complainant alleged that Open Competition EPSO CAST 25 EN was not sufficiently transparent and well organised (in particular the time-limits for registration and examination results, as well as the date for replying to his letter of 21 December 2005, were not respected).

2.2 In its opinion, EPSO explained that, after Call for expression of interest - EPSO CAST 25 EN ("the Call") had been launched, numerous announcements were made in EPSO's "Latest News" website, in order to keep candidates informed of what stage had been reached in the recruitment process. As regards the allegedly poor organisation of Open Competition EPSO CAST 25 EN, EPSO acknowledged that several candidates experienced difficulties when they tried to register for the selection tests. In this regard, EPSO explained that its IT system was overloaded by the large number of candidates who sought to register on the first day of the reservation period, and that EPSO was consequently obliged to set up a "queuing" system, in order to limit the inconvenience caused by the fact that candidates were simultaneously accessing the system. However, this did not mean that the competition was poorly organised, but that EPSO had to address certain unforeseen circumstances brought about by the very large number of candidates and by the fact that many of them tried to register at once.

As regards the notification of the results of the selection tests, EPSO pointed out the following: (i) On 13 January 2006, candidates were informed that the test results would shortly be published and that a system update would be necessary in order to download these results. As a consequence of such updating, their EPSO Porta would not be accessible from 16 January 2006 until the second half of February 2006. (ii) On 17 February 2006, candidates were informed that the tests results would be published in the week of 27 February 2006. (iii) On 27 February 2006, candidates were informed that the results of the tests had been posted on their EPSO Porta. EPSO further explained that the selection tests took place between 28 November 2005 and 16 January 2006 in several examination centres in all the Member States. By 27 February 2006, all the selection test results had been obtained by EPSO and were communicated to the candidates on the same day. EPSO therefore considered that the time taken to notify candidates of the results was appropriate and reasonable.

2.3 The Ombudsman notes that the Call was published on EPSO's website in June 2005. The Call set out the general requirements and the process of the selection procedure, and specified that candidates had to register through EPSO's website, by creating an on-line profile, a so-called "EPSO Porta". The deadline for creating the EPSO Porta was set by the Call as 20 July 2005, 12.00 Brussels time. The Ombudsman also notes that Point C (Successive stages of the selection procedure, Pre-selection tests) of the Call stated that "[t]he concrete timing and modalities of the test will be communicated to the pre-selected candidates at a later stage via their EPSO PORTA." In this regard, the Ombudsman notes that, following the launch of the Call, EPSO communicated the following information to candidates via their EPSO Porta:

(i) On 4 October 2005, EPSO informed the candidates whether their applications had been accepted or rejected. In case of rejection, the grounds for this decision were given.

(ii) On 17 October 2005, EPSO informed the candidates that, due to the fact that the number of applications received (over 32 000 applications) had exceeded the number of jobs that the Community institutions might be in a position to offer, EPSO requested the Selection Committee to define stricter objective requirements within the criteria published. EPSO also pointed out that this possibility had been foreseen by the Call, and that these stricter objective requirements would be applied solely on the basis of the details of each candidates' own application form.

(iii) On 27 October 2005, EPSO informed the candidates that the registration period to reserve dates for the selection tests had been postponed and that it would be suspended between 9 November 2005, 12.00 Brussels time and 27 November 2005, 12.00 Brussels time.

(iv) On 9 November 2005, EPSO published a notice, in which it stated that it was aware of the difficulties that many candidates experienced while trying to register for the tests. EPSO explained that, out of the almost 29 000 candidates admitted to the tests, a large majority tried to register at the very beginning of the registration period. This caused substantial bottlenecks in the system, which thus had not been accessible to every candidate. EPSO stated that it had been examining the technical possibilities of improving the situation, and that, for the sake of preserving equal opportunities for all candidates, the registration period would reopen at the beginning of the following week. EPSO also apologised for the inconvenience cause by the situation.

(v) On 11 November 2005, EPSO informed the candidates that, in response to the recent technical difficulties, it decided to phase the re-opening of the registration by function groups, and provided the relevant dates for each function group. Furthermore, the availability in each test centre would be increased proportionally at each successive stage of the re-opening of access to different function groups, and that a queuing system had been set up to limit any inconveniences caused by a possible system overload. EPSO indicated that the closing date for registration was set at 27 November 2005, and that, depending on the developments during the registration period, the period for taking the tests could be extended, either by additional test time per day, or by additional test days. EPSO further indicated that it would continue to monitor the functioning of the system on a daily basis and, if additional measures were needed, candidates would be informed through the "Latest News" of EPSO's website, or through the candidates' EPSO Porta.

(vi) On 21 November 2005, EPSO provided the candidates with information about the structure of the selection tests and their evaluation methods.

(vii) On 25 November 2005, EPSO informed the candidates that more than 17 000 candidates had registered for the tests so far, and that therefore the closing date for registration had been extended and would end on 2 December 2005, 12.00 Brussels time.

2.4 On the basis of the above communications, the Ombudsman notes that, as foreseen by Point C of the Call, cited above, EPSO provided the candidates, on a regular basis, with information concerning the successive stages of the selection procedure via their EPSO Porta. In this context, the Ombudsman considers that EPSO has endeavoured, in a service-minded way, to inform candidates about the technical problems it had encountered, and the necessary changes that had to be effected in the organisation of the selection tests, due to these problems. The Ombudsman considers that the information thus provided by EPSO was clear and understandable, and allowed a reasonable reader to understand what the next stage of the procedure would be or what element of the procedure had been changed. The Ombudsman therefore takes the view that the organisation of Open Competition EPSO CAST 25 EN was sufficiently transparent.

2.5 As regards the allegedly poor organisation of Open Competition EPSO CAST 25 EN, the Ombudsman considers that EPSO could not have originally foreseen the problem caused by the fact that its IT system was overloaded by the large number of candidates. On the other hand, the Ombudsman considers that EPSO has appropriately dealt with this unforeseen event, and, most importantly, informed the candidates, without any delay, about the consequent changes in the organisation of the competition. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the competition cannot be considered to have been poorly organised.

2.6 As regards the complainant's submission that the time-limits for replying to his letter of 21 December 2005, have not been respected, the Ombudsman considers that this submission is closely linked to the complainant's first allegation. In view of the conclusions in point 1.5 above, the Ombudsman finds no reason to pursue this aspect of the complaint further.

2.7 On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman takes the view that Open Competition EPSO CAST 25 EN was sufficiently transparent and well organised. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration by EPSO in this regard.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by EPSO. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The Director of EPSO will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS