In July 2023, the CSC (Comité Syndical Central), a committee within Union Syndicale Fédérale — the trade union representing EU institution staff — submitted a formal note to the European Ombudsman accompanied by over 70 pages of candidate testimonials about EPSO's competition procedures.

This was not a theoretical complaint. It was a dossier of firsthand accounts from real candidates who sat EPSO exams between 2022 and 2023. We obtained and analysed the full annex. The picture it paints is damning.

What the complaint documents

The annex contains detailed written accounts from candidates across multiple competitions: COM AD6 2022, EPSO/AST/151/22, EPSO/AD/398/22, COM/AD/03/22 (AD5), COM AST2 2022, CAST FG III/IV, JPP, and permanent CAST calls. Some common threads run through nearly every story.

1. Platform Crashes: When the Software Fails, the Candidate Pays

The single most common complaint is simple: the testing platform fails, and the candidate loses time they cannot get back.

"I did the verbal part, and then during the numerical part, after a couple of questions, I was disconnected from the application. I tried to reconnect 4 times, but it never worked. I contacted the support via the chat function, but they were not able to help me. They provided me a US phone number to call. The last (third) person told me that she doesn't have the authority to reschedule."

Missing test sections

Another candidate's case study section simply never appeared in the exam interface:

"I read the instructions 2 minutes and then in the next screen there was no time of 90 minutes or the word editor to write the study. [...] When they opened it it went to survey instead of the case study!!! They rejected my request to give again the part 2 of the exams. As it was my fault not theirs."

Timer continues during crashes

"An error occurred during the final section of the test, specifically the abstract reasoning portion. As a result, I was unable to proceed to the next question, while the timer continued to run. [...] Upon being fully reconnected, I discovered that the timer had dwindled to a mere 15 seconds, instead of the original 8 minutes and 15 seconds."

"I tried 3 times. First attempt: questions not displayed. Second attempt: time was set to 20 minutes instead of 35 minutes. Third attempt: access denied. [...] The chat does not allow communication with helpdesk and was interrupted abruptly."

The pattern is consistent across every account: the platform fails, the candidate contacts support, support cannot help, the candidate is passed between Prometric and EPSO, and ultimately no reschedule is granted — unless the candidate spent hours chasing tickets, and even then only under punishing conditions.

2. Invasive Proctoring: "Worse Than a Police Check"

The security check procedure is a recurring source of outrage documented by nearly every candidate.

"With everything they ask us, they invaded my privacy to the point where I had to empty my pockets and turn them inside out — worse than a police check. Show the back of my ears, the underside of my chair, put my dog outside (I think my dog was going to give me the answers). It's shameful to set up such an exam."

"I was asked to: close and cover all windows, roll up my sleeves above the elbows, position the webcam behind and in my ears as well as in my trouser pockets, also position the webcam in every corner of the room, under the table, under the chair, and finally under the keyboard and under the mouse. I also had to wrap my laptop in a white sheet. (More than 30 minutes lost and intense stress.)"

"I was asked to open the front door for them to see what was in front of that [...] and then they saw the TV, although so far away from me, and they told me I had to end the procedure, cover the TV and then re-connect. [...] This ended up taking so much longer and when I tried to re-connect, I had to wait for over 20 minutes."

"The demands for total emptiness of the room, desk, etc. — I can barely speak from outrage. The candidates have to have at least one room designed for testing purpose only! In this context the simple demand 'candidates are required to be professional, civil and respectful at all times while testing' sounds like mockery, as EPSO demands constitute a positive example of bullying."

Multiple candidates report being passed between 2 or 3 different proctors, each repeating the full security check from scratch — eating into exam time before a single question is answered.

3. The Calculator and Scratchpad Nightmare

A recurring technical issue that directly impacts numerical reasoning performance.

"For numerical reasoning, EPSO provides a calculator. It lies in the middle of the screen, covering the data — and cannot be moved! This makes calculations completely impossible. There is also no 'memory' function on the calculator. [...] No paper and pen is allowed, do they expect us to memorise the data? Numerical tests never did any justice to the candidates' competencies. What we have now is an active obstacle for passing the tests."

"Both the calculator and the scratchpad were hiding the question and the tables, charts and all relevant data needed for the calculation. I was able to perform the calculation for two or three questions only. For the rest, I have had to pick random answers. [...] Every time I would close and reopen the scratchpad, I was constantly redirected at the very top of the scratchpad, creating so much confusion."

"The tools available with the software deteriorate the conditions of the exam. The copy function of the calculator wasn't working. The size of windows of the calculator and the notepad couldn't be reduced and were hiding part of the questions. The software was lagging."

4. Discriminatory Treatment of Candidates with Disabilities

Some of the most distressing accounts come from candidates with medical conditions whose needs were ignored or dismissed by EPSO.

"On 13 March 2023, I requested to be allowed to go to the toilet during my case study. I sent a medical report as proof that I have Multiple Sclerosis. This report was sufficient for me to get a standing desk at work, and to be given the serious illness status. Bladder and bowel issues are a very common symptom of this illness. Still, I was told that I needed further proof. As my doctor was unavailable on short notice, I couldn't provide an additional document. [...] This led to me being seriously stressed during the exam, spending the last half hour in extreme discomfort because I needed the toilet, and having to end my exam before the 2 hours were done. Even under these circumstances, I was evaluated with 23 points, one point shy of a passing grade."

"I was pregnant, which EPSO completely ignored. I notified EPSO as instructed on their website and asked if my special needs could be accommodated. I never heard back. I was also notified about dates of the tests very late (less than 48 hours before they would take place). On one occasion, the date I was given collided with a medical appointment for pregnancy-related complications. I notified EPSO immediately, but they got back to me too late."

5. Poorly Written Questions with No Correct Answer

Multiple candidates reported exam questions where none of the provided options were legally or factually correct.

"Several questions in the MCQ part were so unclear (and offered such incomplete or confusing answers) that it was nearly impossible to guess what the 'right' response was supposed to be. Question 48 on whether the European Parliament 'can overthrow the Commission' — none of the possible answers matched the law set out in Article 234 TFEU. The question on the adoption of the Multiannual Financial Framework also offered only vague possible answers, none of which matched the law."

Even more alarming: when EPSO neutralised three flawed questions, they raised the pass mark rather than maintaining it proportionally, effectively penalising candidates further.

"The pass mark was originally 60% (30/50). After neutralisation of 3 questions, a candidate must now have at least 29 correct answers from 47 questions, raising the de facto pass mark to 61.7%. This penalises more those candidates who relied on the three neutralised questions to achieve a pass mark."

6. The Cost Burden Shift: You Pay, EPSO Saves

Candidates consistently point out that EPSO's shift to remote proctoring privatised the infrastructure cost.

"The candidates are mostly European taxpayers. They have already paid in their taxes for EPSO to organise the selections, including test centres. Now EPSO is telling them to pay more money to, in fact, organise their own test centres at home. If this is not outrageously bad financial management, I don't know what is."

Specific costs candidates reported bearing:

• Having to buy a new computer because corporate/managed laptops are forbidden (the proctoring software needs administrator rights)
• Forced to travel to another country to access a quiet room — one candidate went to Switzerland to use a parent's house
• Being scheduled at 20:45 on a working day, taking the exam exhausted with no option to reschedule
• The emergence of paid services charging €85 + VAT to rent an "EPSO-compliant testing room" with PC, screen, and webcam

7. The Unreachable Helpdesk

When things go wrong, reaching a human is nearly impossible.

"After more than 2 hours of searching for a solution, the EPSO contact form was down. The Prometric site was a static page with a bot not doing anything but suggesting to read the FAQs. I searched all the site and finally I found a form, I filled a complaint but the submission was not possible."

Another candidate spent two weeks processing a complaint through Prometric's chatbot, only to be emailed in Dutch (their test languages were FR, DE, EN), and then asked to translate their own complaint into English for Prometric to understand it.

The helpdesk experience is transactional at best: support agents cannot reschedule, cannot stop the timer, and often contradict each other. One candidate described being "passed between a chatbot, a US phone number, and three different support agents, none of whom could help." Another was told they would need to travel to the United States to resolve their issue.

8. A Broken Redress System

Perhaps the most telling section of the complaint documents a broader pattern: the system designed to catch failures is itself broken.

Candidates describe a Kafkaesque loop:

1. Platform fails → contact support → support says "not our problem, contact EPSO"
2. EPSO says "we need an incident ticket from Prometric" → Prometric takes 24+ hours to issue a ticket
3. File a complaint → EPSO rejects it because you "managed to finish the exam" (even though a section was missed)
4. Appeal → EPSO takes 2 weeks → when they finally approve a retake, it is scheduled at 20:45 the next day
5. Take the retake exhausted → perform worse → EPSO counts that result

"I was first ignored, which made me email again, and then I was told not to contact them anymore over email. Since my reports on the website were ignored, and I was told to not contact them anymore on the email, I was at wit's end."

The broader picture

The CSC complaint to the Ombudsman is not an isolated event. It is part of a sustained pattern that has been documented by:

• The European Ombudsman in its broader inquiries into EPSO selection procedures
• The European Parliament in questions to the Commission about remote proctoring
• Union Syndicale articles in their Agora magazine calling for reform
• Individual Article 90 Staff Regulations appeals against selection board decisions

EPSO has since changed providers — moving from Prometric to Open Assessment Technologies as of June 2025. But many of the structural issues identified in the complaint remain: candidates still bear the full hardware and environment cost, the complaint and redress process remains slow and opaque, calculator and scratchpad UX is still poor, and there is no compensation for platform failures.

What this means for your preparation

This document is not intended to discourage you, but to arm you with knowledge.

Before the exam

• Read EPSO's testing instructions carefully, but also prepare for them to be contradicted by the proctor on the day
• Have a backup device ready if possible — EPSO unofficially expects this
• Test your setup days in advance, not hours
• Know your rights regarding special accommodations — and push back if ignored

During the exam

• Document everything: take screenshots (if possible), note proctor names, save ticket numbers
• If the platform fails, insist on a ticket number before disconnecting
• Do not exit the application unless explicitly instructed by EPSO, not just by Prometric

After the exam

• File a complaint via EPSO's contact form immediately if you experienced technical issues
• Follow up persistently — the first response may be automated
• Include your Prometric ticket number and any screenshots
• If you are an EU institution staff member, consider an Article 90 appeal

This article is based on the CSC note to the European Ombudsman of 12 July 2023, annex of candidate testimonials (Ref. Ares(2023)4843669). The full document is available at Union Syndicale. Some testimonials have been lightly edited for clarity and length.