The case concerned how the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) dealt with complaints from a national assistant of the European Delegated Prosecutors in Italy. The complainant alleged that the European Delegated Prosecutors of the EPPO Office in Rome interfered in two administrative procedures he initiated at national level. The complaint also concerned how the EPPO dealt with a request for public access to documents submitted by the complainant.

The Ombudsman found shortcomings in the EPPO’s handling of the complaints in terms of how the EPPO communicated its position to the complainant and the reasons for its conclusion not to take further action. The EPPO addressed this in the course of the inquiry by providing clear and reasonable explanations for its position. The Ombudsman also found that the EPPO did not breach the complainant’s rights when dealing with the complaints.

Regarding the access to documents request, the Ombudsman found that the reasons invoked by the EPPO not to disclose the requested documents do not appear to be in line with the EU legislation on public access to documents. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman found that the decision not to disclose the documents requested by the complainant was reasonable, albeit for a different reason than that relied on by the EPPO.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that no further inquiries are justified.

The case concerned the decision by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to retest all candidates following a technical fault during a testing session for eight translators’ selection procedures in 2025. The issue was a set-up mistake that allowed candidates to select multiple answers in tests where only one response was accepted. Around a third of the candidates had selected multiple answers. The retesting session was scheduled on a single day, with a possibility to reschedule only in case of force majeure. Complainants turned to the Ombudsman, arguing that the decision to retest all candidates was disproportionate and that the refusal to allow rescheduling of the test was unfair.

The Ombudsman found that EPSO and the Selection Boards had carefully assessed the matter and that there was nothing to suggest that the chosen approach failed to represent a reasonable balance between the two key considerations put forward by EPSO and the Selection Boards, namely technical and administrative feasibility as well as equal treatment of candidates. The decision to retest all candidates was thus proportionate to the objective of preserving equal treatment of candidates. The Ombudsman also concluded that in the given technical context, it was reasonable for EPSO to apply its standard policy on rescheduling.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by EPSO.

The case concerned how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) handled a complaint related to test results in a recruitment procedure for standing corps officers. The complainant had not obtained the minimum overall score in a multiple-choice test (‘MCQ test’), to be able to proceed to the next step in the procedure. The complainant questioned his results and was concerned that he had been subject to racial and ethnic discrimination. The complainant asked for the questions and his answers, which Frontex did not give him.

Dissatisfied with how Frontex handled the matter, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked Frontex to consider providing the complainant with a list that shows, in the form of letters, the answers provided by the complainant and the correct answers in the MCQ test. Frontex provided the complainant with information along these lines.

The Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration in how Frontex calculated the complainant’s test scores, nor was there any indication of discrimination.

Given that Frontex provided the complainant with relevant information about the MCQ test in the course of the inquiry, there were no further inquiries justified into this aspect of the case. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a suggestion for improvement to Frontex that it should inform candidates in its recruitment procedures of the results obtained in any eliminatory test, by means of a grid stating, with regard to the number corresponding to each question, the answer given (in the form of a letter), as well as the correct answer (also in the form of a letter).  

The case concerned how an EU Mission handled the prolonged medical leave of a seconded national expert. The complainant questioned the basis for keeping him on medical leave, the procedure followed, the protection of his medical data and the decision to stop paying his daily allowance during part of his absence.

The Ombudsman found that the Mission had reasonable grounds for its actions. It relied on assessments by several medical professionals, involved the complainant’s seconding authority and allowed him to return to work once the relevant conditions were met. The Mission also applied the relevant rules when it stopped paying the complainant’s daily allowance.

The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dealt with a complaint about unclear questions in a test in the context of a staff selection procedure for the EU civil service. The complainant argued that the problem was due to poor translation and was also concerned about how EPSO deals more generally with such complaints.

The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found that EPSO had dealt reasonably with the complaint in question, and that it had provided a satisfactory account of its practice and procedure for handling translation-related complaints in general.

While recognising that the circumstances for candidates to make a valid complaint may be challenging, given the stressful test situation and the fact that candidates cannot take notes, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified. The Ombudsman nonetheless suggested that EPSO should consider publishing additional instructions to candidates about the kind of information and descriptions required when submitting translation-related complaints.

The case concerned a staff member of the European Central Bank (ECB) who considered that he was harassed by his line manager. He complained about this in early 2021. The ECB launched an administrative inquiry, and at the same time assigned the complainant to another workplace in the ECB for his own protection.

The administrative inquiry took two and half years, and was closed three years after the complainant first asked for help. The administrative inquiry found that the complainant had been harassed, and formally initiated a disciplinary procedure against the line manager.

During the ECB’s follow-up to the outcome of the administrative inquiry, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman. He alleged that there were unreasonable delays in the process.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the ECB finalised the disciplinary procedure and the complainant eventually returned to his main workplace.

The Ombudsman found that there had been unreasonable delays in all phases of the ECB’s handling of the matter, and that the ECB had failed to address important issues in its follow-up. The Ombudsman therefore proposed a solution to the ECB, namely that it apologise, pay compensation and ensure meaningful internal communication to staff about the harassment case.

In its reply to the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, the ECB expressed regret for what had happened. It organised additional internal communication about the harassment case. It did not, however, find that it had the elements necessary for considering financial compensation. The Ombudsman found that the harm that was caused by the ECB’s handling of the complainant’s harassment case had regrettably not been repaired by the ECB’s response to the proposal for a solution. However, as a recommendation reiterating the same points would not appear to be useful, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with suggestions for systemic improvements and again asking the ECB to engage with the complainant to identify the relevant financial consequences of its maladministration.