The case concerned the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s (Frontex) failure to provide a substantive response to an administrative complaint related to allegations of harassment and irregularities made by a Category 2 Standing Corps officer.

The complainant filed the administrative complaint with Frontex in March 2023. Frontex replied that, contrary to previous information it had provided to the complainant, the latter did not have the right to make such a complaint. Consequently, he would not receive a substantive response. However, in the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, Frontex said it would provide a general substantive response to the complainant by November 2024. Frontex provided this response to the complainant in December 2025 only. The Ombudsman found that the inconsistent information provided to the complainant and the egregious delay in responding to the complaint constitute maladministration. However, the Ombudsman did not find it necessary to make a recommendation, given that Frontex has now provided a substantive response to the complainant.

Additionally, the Ombudsman’s inquiry revealed the absence of an effective complaint and redress mechanism for Category 2 officers, such as in harassment situations at Frontex. The Ombudsman concluded that this is a systemic issue that also constitutes maladministration.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Frontex Management Board introduce an effective complaint and redress mechanism in the upcoming revision of the legal framework for Category 2 officers.

The case concerned the fact that a staff member of the European Commission’s Paymaster Office (PMO) accidentally sent an email to the complainant, which he found insulting.

The Ombudsman found that the content of the email in question was indeed inappropriate, but deemed that the Commission had taken adequate measures to address the matter, notably by apologising to the complainant and taking measures to prevent such incidents occurring in the future, in particular by reminding staff members of their obligation to communicate politely.

The Ombudsman closed the case finding that no further inquiries were justified.  

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dealt with a request from a candidate who had recently given birth to reschedule an oral test (interview) in a selection procedure for technical support experts. EPSO had agreed to reschedule one interview but rescheduled it to take place on the same day as another interview related to the selection procedure. The complainant was dissatisfied with how EPSO had dealt with her administrative complaint regarding the matter.

The Ombudsman took the view that it was not reasonable for EPSO to schedule two tests on the same day, as all other candidates were able to sit the tests on separate days. This was particularly difficult for the complainant, as she had recently given birth. How EPSO dealt with the request therefore constituted maladministration. To address this the Ombudsman made a suggestion to EPSO to enter into dialogue with the complainant with a view to finding an appropriate and fair solution.

The case concerned how the European Commission dealt with the request by a journalist working at a news agency to be added to a mailing list for embargoed press releases, specifically for Eurostat’s ‘Euro indicators’, which provide regular economic statistical information. Eurostat, which is part of the Commission, refused to add the journalist to the list because it stated only journalists or agencies who had been granted media ‘accreditation’ by the Commission could be included on such distribution lists. It was not possible for the journalist or his news agency to receive accreditation, because they did not meet one of the preconditions, namely that the agency or a journalist at the agency is domiciled in Belgium. The complainant contended that this practice was discriminatory and meant that only larger media organisations with sufficient financial resources that could afford to have journalists in Belgium could receive embargoed information.

The Ombudsman found that it was reasonable for the Commission to include domicile in Belgium as a precondition for accreditation when it comes to accessing the physical buildings of the EU institutions in Brussels. However, she found that including a domicile requirement in Belgium as a precondition for inclusion on distribution lists for members of the media was disproportionate.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of maladministration, and asked the Commission to report back within six months to inform her of the action it had taken to address the situation.