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 the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to Papua New Guinea to reject the complainant’s tender as abnormally low. The complainant argued that the Delegation failed to ask for specific clarifications, to reason its decision and based its rejection on elements unrelated to the price quoted in the tender.

The Ombudsman found that the Delegation should have been more specific when requesting clarifications from the complainant on the price and should have established a clear link between the price and all the elements taken into consideration in its assessment. The Delegation also failed to sufficiently substantiate its decision to reject the tender as abnormally low, in breach of the duty to state reasons. These shortcomings amount to maladministration.

While the Commission provided additional clarifications during the inquiry, the Ombudsman found that these clarifications did not sufficiently address the shortcomings identified.

The Ombudsman considered that it would not be appropriate to make a corresponding recommendation in this case as the contract has been awarded. She nevertheless made three suggestions aimed at preventing such problems occurring in future similar cases.

The complainant, a Member of the European Parliament, raised concerns about what he believed was a discrepancy between the AI Act and the Code of Practice for general purpose AI (GPAI). The European Commission recently confirmed that the Code, developed by stakeholders, is an ‘adequate’ voluntary tool for GPAI providers to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act. However, the complainant argued that the Code exempts GPAI providers from their duty under the AI Act to document or at least estimate the energy consumption of their models during their training and testing.

The Ombudsman inquired into this issue and found the Commission reasonably explained how its AI Office intends to assess the energy consumption of GPAI where the providers lack certain information necessary to make the estimation. Thus, the Commission provided the necessary assurances that it will fulfil the underlying objective of the AI Act in this regard. In this context, the Ombudsman noted that the Code is intended as a temporary solution, which may be further improved and is likely to be replaced by targeted instruments, such as ‘harmonised standards’, developed by the European Standardisation Organisations.

On this basis, the Ombudsman found that, at this stage, no further inquiries into this complaint are justified.

The case concerned the European Commission’s refusal to give partial or wider access to two documents related to a project funded in partnership with UNICEF. In refusing access, the Commission relied on five exceptions set out in EU legislation on access to documents, that is, the need to protect the public interest as regards international relations and the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or a Member State, as well as the protection of its decision-making process, the commercial interest of a third-party and the privacy and integrity of natural persons, including their personal data.

Based on the inspection of the documents at issue, the Ombudsman was not convinced by the Commission’s arguments that partial or wider disclosure would (seriously) undermine the protection of the interests invoked. The Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution asking the Commission to reconsider its position on the request, with a view to it granting the widest possible access to the documents at issue. She also reminded the Commission of its obligation to take decisions within a reasonable time and give reasons for its decisions.

The Commission accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution and provided the complainant with partial and wider access to the documents. The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s positive response to her proposal for a solution, which settled the complaint.  

The case concerned the European Commission´s handling of an infringement complaint regarding Czechia´s decision to merge its Railways Authority with the Competition Authority. The main concern was that the merger may have infringed EU law and that Czechia may have failed to ensure independent and effective supervision of the rail sector.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons to the complainant for its finding that there was no breach of EU law by Czechia. Having examined the Commission’s explanations provided during the inquiry, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had investigated the matter diligently and that its decision to close the case had been based on solid grounds.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration as regards the Commission’s assessment of the infringement complaint. Given that, in the course of the inquiry, the Commission provided a detailed statement of reasons, this aspect of the case was settled. The Ombudsman suggested to the Commission to always provide complainants with an adequate statement of reasons when intending to close an infringement case.

The case concerned a call for tenders organised by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) concerning the provision of clothing equipment for Frontex officers. The complainant, a company which also took part in the tender procedure, raised concerns with Frontex regarding the award of the contract to the winning company. More specifically, the complainant argued that Frontex should have rejected the winning tender because of the tenderer’s alleged financial difficulties and its deficiencies in the implementation of another contract, as well as because the offer it had submitted was, in the complainant’s view, abnormally low.

The Ombudsman found that Frontex had correctly carried out the eligibility check of the successful tenderer, in accordance with the applicable rules. Moreover, she found that Frontex’s assessment that the successful tender was not abnormally low was reasonable and in line with the applicable rules.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.