BREAKING NEWS EPSO
Testing Times: The EU’s Recruitment Nightmare Continues
For those dreaming of a life in the Berlaymont, the path to becoming a European civil servant has long been paved with more than just rigorous logic puzzles and multilingualism. Increasingly, it is paved with “Error 404” messages and frozen screens.
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), the body tasked with staffing the EU’s machinery, is currently embroiled in a digital transformation that is proving to be less of a streamlined leap forward and more of a clumsy stumble.
The new guard
In June 2025, EPSO sought to turn the page on years of IT failures by signing a framework contract with Open Assessment Technologies (OAT) S.A. as its primary provider for remote testing. Supported by Prometric Ireland Ltd as a secondary “cascade” supplier, this transition was heralded as a “candidate-centric” revolution aimed at enhancing security and user experience. The goal was a robust, flexible platform that would finally put an end to the “testing nightmare” following significant delays in 2025 caused by previous system unreliability.
A Parliament at loggerheads
The optimism was short-lived. By late 2025, the European Parliament issued a scathing resolution (2025/2880(RSP)) condemning “repeated technical, organisational and procedural shortcomings”. MEPs cited candidates suffering from “substantial mental distress” and a “loss of trust” in the recruitment process. The resolution demanded that the Commission propose fair solutions, such as “flexible and swift retesting options,” and urged the reintroduction of physical test centres to ensure a standardised environment.
The Official Line
EPSO, however, has remained largely defensive. Officials recently told the press that complaint volumes were “not alarming” and remained within industry standards. Instead of systemic failure, EPSO and its software providers have often pointed the finger at candidates, suggesting many difficulties result from “non-compliant environments”—specifically outdated hardware or insufficient RAM. For candidates who followed every instruction only to see their exams vanish into the digital ether, this response has felt less like support and more like an institutional shrug.
Disaster in the Field: The AD7 Experience
If the new provider was meant to be the “critical milestone” for stability, the AD7 Building Management competition suggests the system is still in cardiac arrest. Far from the promised “user-friendly interface,” the experience on 27 January 2026 was defined by “Total Crashes”:
Frozen Progress: Candidates reported being blocked for 10 to 15 minutes between test segments, such as between the numerical and abstract reasoning tests.
Vanishing Sessions: Many applicants encountered “Page Not Found” errors or were kicked out of the system entirely. Upon refreshing or rebooting, their exams were prematurely marked as “completed” or “finished,” preventing any further access.
Interface Absurdities: The “candidate-centric” platform delivered a jumbo-sized online calculator and scratchpad that filled the entire screen and could not be minimized.
Input Failures: Some candidates were forced to use their mouse to draw notes or click calculator buttons because their keyboards were unresponsive or deleted numbers instead of calculating them.
The Reporting Paradox: While many accept that IT glitches occur, the minimum expectation is a functional way to report them.
Conflicting Instructions: EPSO’s official complaint policy points toward a candidate contact form, yet those who reached the provider, TAO, were told to fill out a request on the “Single Candidate Portal” with proof of the failure.
The Helpdesk Void: Many spent 20 to 60 minutes on hold with TAO without an answer. Some waited over an hour only to have the call disconnected
Left in the dark, candidates resorted to asking one another in online forums whether an email would suffice as “proof” of their attempt to contact support, or if they were required to record their failed phone calls. Some even recorded their screens on speakerphone to prove the assistance line was non-responsive.
The testimony of one aspirant in the AD7 race serves as a poignant summary of the day’s systemic failure. Having prepared for the transition to the new platform, the candidate watched in horror as their computer froze during the very first test segment. Upon a desperate reboot, the system coldly informed them that the session was already “completed,” effectively disqualifying them before they could even begin. Despite possessing a high-specification machine and a stable connection—the very “compliant environment” EPSO frequently cites—they were left to languish on hold for nearly 40 minutes before finally reaching a representative. “I had heard the whispers of past technical glitches,” the candidate noted, “but I never expected the ‘fresh start’ to be so indistinguishable from the old nightmare”. For the EU’s recruitment arm, the crisis has moved beyond the server room; it is now a question of whether any talented candidate will bother to risk their professional future on a system that seems fundamentally designed to fail them.
AD5/AD6 internal competitions: the selection board reviews the MCQ questions
Mr Quest, Director General of Human Resources, has informed us that the jury has carried out an overall review of the MCQ questions in order to identify those that have been neutralised.
Dear colleagues,
First of all, we would like to thank you for the words and encouragement you sent us further to our open letter to the Director General for Human Resources Stephen Quest on 24 March concerning the problems arising in the context of internal competitions AD5/AD6.
We are pleased to inform you that, on Monday 31 March, in the margins of a social dialogue meeting, Mr Quest informed us that the selection board would carry out an overall review of the MCQ questions in order to identify the issues that would need to be neutralised.
We are glad to have been able to help you on this issue and our success is a further indicator of the importance for staff of being able to count on a responsive and effective trade union.
On this and other issues, we will continue to stand by you and make your voice heard to protect your rights and to ensure that the European Union continues to be defended by a civil service commensurate with the challenges it faces.
Competitions, yet another fiasco that cannot go unanswered !
Dear Mr Quest,
Following the setbacks experienced in the organization of external competitions, the organization of the “Multiple Choice Questionnaire” (MCQ) pre-selection tests for the recent AD5 and AD6 internal competitions has also encountered significant problems. The Commission must resolve these malfunctions without further delay. For the sake of its reputation, but also out of respect for the candidates who, in this case, are colleagues working for our institution.
We call on the Commission to cancel the criticized multiple-choice tests and to quickly reschedule the delivery of a better quality test.
Taking into account that:
• some colleagues who went for this competition may not have the chance to stay in the system due to reaching the contractual time limit;
• the concerned Commission services are in urgent need of keeping expertise and talents also in light of the new strategic Commission orientations;
• the organisation needs competent people for the work to be done.
U4U demands that:
• the Selection Board cancels immediately the poorly design MCQ test and reorganise it at a level of quality compatible with what could be expected from an Institution like the European Commission
• colleagues who are about to end their assignments with the Commission are not negatively impacted by the consequences of the current situation and have therefore have the possibility to re-sit in the MCQ preselection;
• the Selection board verifies accurately the quality of the new set of questions to make sure that they are appropriate and in adequacy with the candidates’ competence and experience and diversified enough to ensure a real equality of treatment between colleagues coming from diversified backgrounds.
• The selection board verifies carefully, considering the difference of length of the texts used for the written test, that all candidates are treated in an equal way.
In attachment you will find a note for the file with a summary of the issues identified by the colleagues who contacted us about the organisation of this competition.
We are working for the common objective of making the EU a stronger institution but for this we need to quickly identify signals that may hamper the future of a stronger European Administration.
U4U has advocated with the colleagues on the importance of an EU career system based on transparency, competencies, commitment, professional growth and we are keen to keep it up.
We trust that the administration will react quickly to rectify the situation, and we shall thus wait for your reaction.
Georges Vlandas Yves Caelen Annabelle Menendez-Vallina
President Vice-president Secretary-General (act.)
25/03/2025
TRIBUNE LIBRE: EPSO reintroduces open competitions: a mixed experience for candidates
After a long hiatus, EPSO has finally resumed its open competitions, starting with *Transport* and more recently *Statistics*.
With these long-awaited opportunities now underway, candidates were hopeful that the new technical platform, managed by a different company after the numerous issues with last year’s provider, would ensure a smoother experience. While the most significant technical issues from previous years were mitigated, some candidates still encountered sporadic challenges.
Reports from candidates highlighted various technical issues, including lag, an absent or inconsistent on-screen timer, and immovable tools, such as a calculator that obscured parts of the text-based questions. Additionally, some candidates faced problems with an unavailable note-taking tool, which was meant to be a valuable resource throughout the test.
In response to initial written complaints, EPSO clarified that if candidates did not attempt to contact the TestWe application helpdesk during the test, their complaints would be automatically dismissed. Some candidates chose to proceed without reporting issues mid-test—hoping glitches would resolve on their own—while others attempted to reach support but received no response despite multiple attempts. EPSO’s reliance on candidates to engage with real-time technical support raises questions regarding both accessibility and accountability. This issue has not gone unnoticed, as the European Ombudsman has addressed EPSO’s approach to technical complaints, suggesting that EPSO adopt a more flexible approach.
“If EPSO requires candidates to first have contacted its external contractor’s technical support before submitting a complaint about issues during a remote test, it should clearly set out this requirement in the notice of competition, rather than the instructions. However, it is important that EPSO demonstrates flexibility in investigating complaints, as there may be scenarios where it is not possible for candidates to contact the technical support and/or get tickets.”
EPSO’s current complaint policy has left many issues unresolved, yet these recurring technical problems are potentially avoidable. EPSO could benefit from conducting a brief survey prior to dismissing complaints, possibly uncovering underlying issues tied to candidates’ specific hardware setups. Simple questions could clarify factors such as whether candidates used an external monitor, tested on a laptop, or the operating system and memory capacity of their device. Given the investments that prospective colleagues have made to ensure reliable equipment since the closure of test centres, understanding candidates’ technical setups would improve the testing process. For instance, the Ombudsman pointed out that issues tied to smaller laptop screens require clearer communication to ensure candidates are well-prepared and not disadvantaged by equipment differences.
“EPSO should address this issue, for example by requiring its contractor to optimize the test application or structure, so it is compatible with different screen sizes (including standard laptop screens), or taking other steps to ensure that candidates are not disadvantaged due to the equipment to which they have access.”
EPSO itself acknowledged this challenge in the Ombudsman report:
“The test application and the test content is are designed for larger screens, but some candidates may not have access to such screens and have laptop screens only. As EPSO acknowledged, this means that candidates relying solely on smaller laptop screens would have trouble reading the test material and, essentially, be at a disadvantage in taking the test “.
As EPSO has acknowledged, this means that candidates who only use smaller laptop screens will have difficulty reading the test material and will therefore be at a disadvantage when taking the test.
Despite these challenges, it is worth noting the improvements made to the exam structure. EPSO now offers the possibility of taking the exams in 24 different languages, opening doors to many candidates who would previously have been reluctant to register due to language barriers. In addition, written examination material is available two weeks before the test on the EPSO website, giving candidates sufficient time to prepare. During the exam, candidates have 40 minutes to answer a specific question. By having the opportunity to do so in their mother tongue, many qualified professionals across the EU may feel more encouraged to participate.
The dates for 2025 are now available on the EPSO website, accessible via the same test platform, TestWe. Although this platform remains in use for the time being, EPSO has launched a tender procedure to select a new supplier, which promises potential changes on the horizon.Join us in building a stronger Europe – your journey, our future.
Improving selection and recruitment procedures
Why an active and constructive social dialogue is needed to improve selection and recruitment procedures in the European civil service ?
Speech by Georges Vlandas on 11th Dec 2023 trade unions’ seminar on EPSO selection procedures
The first guarantee of an efficient, agile and innovative European civil service is the quality of the selection and recruitment process put in place by the Institutions.
Despite that, selection and recruitment in the European institutions are in crisis, and not a week passes without EPSO, the body responsible for selecting staff, receiving some very severe and varied criticism, even from the institutions themselves.
This crisis affects us in many ways.
- Firstly, the candidates themselves are being badly treated.
- Second, the departments cannot obtain the additional human resources needed to perform their function.
- Next, there are concerns about the validity and reliability of our recruitment and selection procedures.
- The proportion of permanent official staff is decreasing while that of the contract and temporary staff is increasing.
- Finally, this reflects badly on the Commission’s image, not only in relation to other institutions, but also and, above all, in relation to European society as a whole.
The situation is sufficiently concerning that the search for solutions needs a robust collaborative assessment of the various malfunctions in the selection and recruitment procedures.
And this is what our present meeting aims to contribute to.
To mention the most important of these:
– procedures that take too long and therefore fail to attract new talent;
– invalid and unreliable selection tests that fail to recruit the staff we need;
– the time lag between recruitment procedures and job offers;
– issues related to multi-lingualism.
For a new perspective on the content, selection process and nature of competitions, we need an active social dialogue involving all stakeholders – staff representatives, DG HR, EPSO management, including the other Institutions. We also need a broader consultation involving other stakeholders, including those from civil society, such as. former candidates, recruitment and selection experts, and so on.
The challenge is to formulate a new selection and recruitment policy that will attract and recruit the competent motivated European staff of diverse talent that we need.
This future recruitment process would mainly take the traditional, but revised, form of external competitive examinations and the parallel recruitment of contract or temporary staff, with the option of their permanent integration into the European civil service through internal competitive examinations or ad hoc assessment procedures. The future of our European civil service is at stake.