Dear Mr X,

On 25 March 2026, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the above issue.

In your complaint to the Commission, you claimed, in summary, that a Spanish regional public entity unlawfully excluded you from a selection procedure because of the results obtained in a psychometric test that was not adapted to your disability.

In your complaint to the Ombudsman, you contend that the Commission was wrong not to take any further action on the matter. You claim that the Commission failed to analyse the evidence provided by you, including some judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and to request information from Spain. You further claim that the Commission was wrong when concluding that your case was an individual one. Finally, you argue that, by not investigating the prima facie evidence of the alleged failure by Spain to comply with Directive 2000/78, the Commission failed to comply with its duties as guardian of the Treaties and violated the principles of good administration, impartiality and due diligence.

After careful analysis of all the information you provided to the Ombudsman, it has been decided to close the inquiry with the following conclusion:

There was no maladministration by the European Commission.

The Commission enjoys wide discretion when dealing with a complaint about a potential infringement of EU law by a Member State. In particular, the Commission has wide discretion in deciding whether and when to commence an infringement procedure.^[1] The role of the Ombudsman in cases such as these is to verify whether there has been any manifest error of assessment and whether the Commission has provided clear and reasonable explanations for its position on the complaint.

Based on the information provided in your complaint to the Ombudsman, there is no indication of any manifest error of assessment by the Commission in its handling of your complaint. The Commission provided clear and reasonable explanations as regards why it could not take any further action on the matter. As the Commission informed you, it has no general powers to intervene with a Member State in an individual case. The Commission has the discretion to take the view that your case does not constitute evidence of a systemic failure of Spain to comply with EU law. For the Commission to be able to intervene in cases concerning national administrative practices, there must be sufficient evidence of a practice that is, to some degree, of a consistent and general nature.^[2] Given the information provided in your complaint to the Ombudsman, it was reasonable for the Commission to consider that there were insufficient indications of a sufficiently generalised and consistent practice. The Commission also informed you that your case can best be dealt with at national level and advised you to seek judicial redress there. The Commission also has the discretion to take this view.

I appreciate this may not be your desired outcome, but I hope you find these explanations helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Tina Nilsson
Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg, 23/04/2026

 

[1] Judgment of the Court of 14 February 1989, Starfruit v Commission, case 247/87, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61987CJ0247.

[2] See, for instance, judgment of the Court of 27 April 2006, Commission v Germany, case C-441/02, para. 50-55, 78-80, 98-101, 110-113, 122-125, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=56253&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&o cc=first&part=1&cid=1727315