Search inquiries

The complainant considered that the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation’s (Europol) public register of documents did not comply with EU rules on public access to documents.

The Ombudsman commended Europol’s past efforts towards establishing a register of documents and took note of its distinct characteristics, but also found room for improvement. She therefore proposed that Europol should update its register according to certain principles.

Europol agreed with the Ombudsman’s proposal and committed to take specific steps to implement the proposal in the short and medium term. The Ombudsman welcomed Europol’s decision to accept her proposal for a solution, and closed the inquiry.

The case concerned the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s (Frontex) public register of documents. The complainant contacted Frontex and argued that its register of documents did not comply with EU rules on public access to documents, and that Frontex had not included information about sensitive documents in its annual reports on public access. The complainant also took issue with Frontex’s policy by which non-EU residents do not, under normal circumstances, have the right to request public access to documents. Frontex replied to the complainant but did not commit to making any changes.

The Ombudsman commended Frontex’s past efforts towards establishing a register of documents and took note of its distinct characteristics, but also found room for improvement. She therefore proposed that Frontex should update its register according to certain principles. She also proposed that Frontex should publish the number of sensitive documents it holds that are not included in the register, as required by the applicable rules.

Frontex agreed with the Ombudsman’s proposal and laid out a number of steps it intends to take to implement the proposal in the short, medium and long term. The Ombudsman welcomed Frontex’s decision to accept her proposal for a solution and, given that she also found no maladministration in relation to how it deals with requests for access from non-EU residents, closed the inquiry.

The complainant took an online language test as part of a staff selection procedure organised by Frontex to recruit border and coast guard officers. He failed the test and was thus excluded from further participation in the selection procedure. He complained that the decision to exclude him was unfair as technical problems during the speaking part of the test meant that his answers had not been properly recorded.

The Ombudsman found that Frontex was justified in excluding the complainant from further participation in the selection procedure without allowing him to retake the test. Despite the technical problems, Frontex had had sufficient material to assess the complainant´s speaking skills. The complainant had failed the language test also because of his performance in another part of the test.

The Ombudsman closes the case with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by Frontex. The Ombudsman trusts that Frontex will take greater care in communicating with candidates in staff selection procedures in case of technical problems in future.