Background to the complaint

1. The complainant is a former external expert contracted by the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA). His contract was due to run from March 2025 to December 2025. The complainant worked as part of an asylum support team and his role involved, for instance, conducting interviews with asylum seekers with the aid of interpreters. He did not have any hierarchical responsibility over the interpreters.

2. In April 2025, the EUAA brought to the complainant’s attention alleged unprofessional conduct in his delivery of services to the EUAA and subsequently issued a written warning.

3. In August 2025, the complainant was notified that he was suspended from his duties with the intention of terminating his contract due to unprofessional conduct towards interpreters. The complainant then submitted written comments to the EUAA.

4. The EUAA decided to terminate his contract at the end of August 2025, referring to four complaints submitted against the complainant. The reason for the termination was explained as breaches of the complainant’s contractual obligations under the Code of Conduct for Experts annexed to his contract and the Code of Conduct applicable to all experts participating in asylum support teams[1]. The termination letter further set out that serious concerns were raised about the complainant’s unprofessional conduct in his interactions with interpreters supporting the EUAA operations.

5. The complainant then submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman regarding the suspension and subsequent termination of his contract.

The inquiry

6. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry to seek clarifications about the reasons for the complainant’s contract being terminated, as these reasons were not evident from the termination letter.  

7. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the EUAA’s file on the case, met with EUAA representatives and received the complainant’s comments on the meeting report.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

By the complainant

8. The complainant argued that the reasons given for his suspension and the subsequent termination of his contract were insufficient. The suspension and termination decisions did not explain how the relevant provisions in his contract and the Codes of Conduct were applied to the facts of the case. In his view, this prevented him from understanding the legal basis of the measures taken.

9. The complainant also considered that his right to an effective defence was not respected because he was not informed of the substance of the allegations made against him. No specific facts, dates or individuals were disclosed. Despite repeated requests, he was not granted access to the underlying complaints. In the absence of precise and verifiable accusations, he could not respond meaningfully.

10. The complainant also challenged the evidence that led to the suspension and termination decisions. The report leading to his suspension relied on interpreters’ testimonies that were not formalised in writing, and he questioned the reliability and accountability of such evidence. The EUAA treated the existence of complaints as conclusive evidence of misconduct, without carrying out an objective and balanced assessment of the facts, thereby effectively presuming his guilt.

11. The complainant submitted that the procedure lacked impartiality since his own concerns regarding interpreters’ competence and professional conduct were not meaningfully addressed. One of the interpreters concerned was subsequently dismissed for professional shortcomings, which, in his view, corroborates the concerns he had raised and calls into question the initial assessment of events.

12. The complainant contested several assertions made in the context of the procedure. He denied having accepted a warning for abuse of power and rejected a suggestion that a lack of early response amounted to an implicit admission of wrongdoing. He disputed the characterisation of his behaviour as aggressive and denied having invoked personal or family circumstances to justify his conduct.

13. The complainant further submitted that no constructive steps had been taken to clarify the situation. He had proposed a meeting with the interpreters concerned to resolve possible misunderstandings, but no such meeting took place. He also referred to the broader operational context and suggested that structural or organisational factors may have affected the working environment and should have been considered.

14. Finally, the complainant considered the measures taken to be disproportionate. He argued that his contract was terminated in the absence of substantiated findings and that less severe measures should have been considered. Overall, he questioned whether the decisions were based on a transparent, objective and balanced assessment and raised concerns about the impact on his professional reputation.

By the EUAA

15. The EUAA argued that the decision to suspend and subsequently terminate the complainant’s contract had been based on multiple reports of unprofessional conduct, including several incidents involving interpreters. According to the EUAA, these reports described behaviour such as aggression, inappropriate questioning, physical interference and disregard for professional boundaries, which were contrary to the EUAA’s Code of Conduct.

16. The complainant had been made aware of these concerns through several channels, including in-person and online meetings with EUAA coordinators, as well as through email exchanges and the complainant’s periodic activity reports. Before initiating the suspension, the EUAA had taken steps to address these issues with the complainant, including offering the complainant an opportunity to take time off to rest, considering that personal circumstances might have contributed to the situation. The complaints were thus not arbitrary or unverified.

17. According to the EUAA, despite the attempts to address the issues directly with the complainant, there were new complaints submitted to it after the complainant received warnings. The decision to terminate the contract had been taken to ensure the level of safety and professionalism required in a working environment involving vulnerable populations.

18. The EUAA said that protecting the confidentiality of the individuals who submitted the complaints had been a priority. The information disclosed had therefore been balanced to preserve procedural fairness while protecting individuals who had reported feeling threatened. According to the EUAA, this had required withholding certain specific details of the reported incidents from the complainant, consistent with the objective of maintaining a safe working environment.

19. Overall, the EUAA maintained that it had acted appropriately and in accordance with its procedures, and that the measures taken had been based on substantiated reports and on the need to uphold safety and professional standards in its operations.

The Ombudsman's assessment

20. EU bodies have wide discretion in implementing their staffing policies, including in cases of termination of a contract. This is confirmed by EU case-law. The EU courts can intervene only in case of manifest error in assessing the facts on which the decision is based, or in case of misuse of powers.^[2] The Ombudsman’s role is equally limited.

21. The Ombudsman opened this inquiry based on her consistent view that EU bodies, when deciding to terminate a contractual relationship, must provide clear, fair and objective grounds for such a decision and ensure that the person concerned has had a genuine opportunity to express their views. These requirements reflect core principles of good administration, including the duty to state reasons and respect for the rights of defence. In this case, it was not evident from the termination letter that these requirements had been fully met.

22. The Ombudsman notes that the concerns raised about the complainant’s conduct involved allegations of aggression, inappropriate questioning, and abuse of power towards interpreters. Some incidents were not documented in writing by those affected but were based on oral testimonies collected from interpreters. The EUAA noted down the complaints based on the interviews and recorded general comments in the complainant’s activity reports, which were then used as a basis for its assessment of the complainant’s behaviour.

23. The inquiry showed that, in the period preceding the termination of the contract, the EUAA had engaged with the complainant on several occasions regarding concerns about his conduct. In April 2025, two interpreters complained in writing to the complainant’s hierarchy about what they felt was inappropriate behaviour by the complainant, such as shouting and attempting to exercise inappropriate authority. These problems were discussed, still in April 2025, between the complainant and his hierarchy, while the identity of those having reported the issues and the precise incidents in question were not disclosed to the complainant, to protect the interpreters. Also in April 2025, the complainant received a written warning which mentioned three incidents possibly constituting unprofessional conduct. In addition, these incidents are mentioned by the EUAA in the April 2025 activity report of the complainant, which he had signed. The details of those incidents were not set out.

24. In June 2025, several other complaints were made orally by interpreters, concerning allegedly aggressive behaviour by the complainant. The EUAA discussed the behaviour with the complainant at the end of June and issued a final verbal warning to him. A reference to this discussion and to the written warning issued in April 2025 is included in the June 2025 activity report of the complainant, which he had also signed. In July 2025, several further complaints were made, such as the complainant having made allegedly inappropriate remarks and having questioned asylum seekers in an inappropriate way.

25. The Ombudsman considers that these exchanges, which included meetings, follow-up communications, such as the references in the complainant’s April and June activity reports and a written warning followed by a final verbal warning, set out the substance of the allegations in sufficient detail for the complainant to be aware of the nature of the concerns raised. He was also given opportunities to respond to the concerns and to submit formal observations within the 15-day period provided in the suspension letter.

26. The Ombudsman further notes that the EUAA took steps aimed at resolving the situation prior to adopting the termination decision. The EUAA had offered support measures, such as for the complainant to take time off to address personal matters, which the complainant declined. This indicates that the EUAA did not proceed directly to termination but sought to address the issues through less severe means.

27. As regards the complainant’s procedural rights, the Ombudsman finds that the complainant was, in practice, afforded the possibility to be heard. While the EUAA did not disclose the underlying complaints in full detail, it discussed their nature with the complainant on several occasions[3].. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that confidentiality considerations related to the safety of staff may justify certain limitations on disclosure of information, provided that the person concerned is still able to understand and respond to the allegations[4]. In this case, the exchanges between the EUAA and the complainant, taken as a whole, allowed for a sufficient understanding of the events which lead to the termination of the complainant’s contract.

28. While the Ombudsman was able to determine the main sequence and nature of events in the context of this inquiry. it would have been more in line with good administrative practice for the EUAA to keep a more detailed and structured internal records of the incidents at issue and to share these, to the extent possible, in a more structured manner with the complainant before taking the decision to terminate the contract. Such an approach would have increased the transparency of the procedure and reduced the risk of misunderstandings.

29. The Ombudsman also considers that the termination letter could have been more detailed in setting out the factual basis for the decision. As a matter of principle, a decision adversely affecting an individual should be accompanied by reasoning that allows it to be fully understood on its own. That said, the EU courts have held that a decision’s reasoning may be regarded as sufficient if it was adopted in a context known to the person concerned, enabling them to understand its scope[5]. In this case, the EUAA’s prior exchanges with the complainant do provide such context, clarifying the factual background, in addition to the grounds for the decision to terminate the contract and the objective that it intended to attain, which were set out in the termination letter.

30. Therefore, considering all the information gathered in the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman finds that the EUAA engaged with the complainant prior to the termination, that the complainant must be considered to have been made aware of the concerns raised, through both the EUAA’s decision and the circumstances in which that decision was taken and brought to his knowledge, and that the decision was based on a series of reports considered by the EUAA to be credible. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman does not identify a manifest error of assessment or a procedural shortcoming of such gravity as to constitute maladministration.

Conclusions

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

There was no maladministration in how the EUAA handled the decision to terminate the complainant’s contract.

The complainant and the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) will be informed of this decision.

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 02/07/2026

 

 

[1] https://www.euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2022-06/code_of_conduct_20220617.pdf

[2] Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015, CJ v ECDC, T-370/15 P, paragraph 188, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62012FJ0159

[3] See paragraphs 23-25 above.

[4] In that regard, the Ombudsman notes that the EU Courts accept techniques like anonymisation, summarising, or redacting witness statements to ensure that witness statements remain confidential and that the objectives of such confidentiality are respected, while ensuring the right of the persons concerned to be heard before a decision adversely affecting them is taken. See, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021, KN v EESC, T-377/20, paragraphs 113-114 and the case law cited: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/affair?lang=en&sort=AFF_NUM-DESC&searchTerm=%22T-377%2F20%22&publishedId=T-377%2F20&juridiction=T.

[5] According to the case law, it is possible to regard the reasons given for a decision as sufficient if it was adopted in a context known to the person concerned which enable that person to understand its scope. Furthermore, awareness by the person concerned of the context in which a decision was adopted may constitute a statement of reasons for that decision. See, in that regard, judgment in Guinet v EIB, F‑107/12, paragraph 44: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=celex:62012FJ0107_SUM