The case concerned how the European Commission organised tests in a selection procedure to recruit a Translation/Field Officer based in Nicosia, Cyprus. The tests were held in four EU cities only and the Commission did not reimburse the candidates’ travel and subsistence expenses. The Commission based its approach on the fact that a perfect command of Greek was required and that most candidates came from Cyprus and Greece. The complainant, a Greek citizen living in Sweden, who was short-listed, considered it to be unfair of the Commission to expect him to pay a significant amount to travel to take the test.   

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had not considered the reality that many EU citizens exercise their freedom of movement and live and work in Member States different from their country of origin. Recalling the principle enshrined in the Staff Regulations, namely that EU recruitment must secure staff of the highest standards of ability, efficiency and integrity, the Ombudsman found it problematic that the Commission had not made any effort to facilitate the participation in the test of a candidate that it had shortlisted.

As the selection procedure in question had been finalised, the Ombudsman closed the case finding that no further inquiries are justified. The Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement to the Commission for the future. She asked the Commission to duly consider the situation of shortlisted candidates to ensure equal possibility to participate in in-person tests and interviews either by offering those candidates reimbursement of costs or by offering the possibility to sit the tests or interviews at selected Commission representations in Member States.

 

The cases concerned Frontex’s decision not to reimburse the complainants, who were candidates in a Frontex recruitment procedure for members of its ‘standing corps’, for travel and subsistence costs after they travelled to Warsaw, Poland, for the purpose of swimming tests and medical examinations. Frontex’s rules on recruitment foresee that costs relating to the final medical examination will be reimbursed only if a candidate subsequently takes up their position at Frontex, whereas the complainants did not do so.

The Ombudsman found that, according to Frontex’s rules in place, while Frontex combined the swimming tests with the medical examination due to the pressure on its recruitment procedures, it should have made a separate evaluation of the costs related to the swimming tests.

The Ombudsman made a solution proposal that Frontex should reconsider its decision not to reimburse the complainants for the entirety of the travel and subsistence costs and should consider reimbursing them unavoidable costs related to the swimming tests they underwent. Frontex agreed to contribute in the form of a subsistence allowance for the number of extra days the complainants stayed in Warsaw in order to take the swimming tests.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the finding that Frontex had accepted the proposal for a solution.

 

The case concerned how the European Labour Authority (ELA) assessed the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting a human resources assistant.

The Ombudsman found that the selection committee had examined the information provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman found no indication of a manifest error in how the selection committee assessed the complainant’s professional experience. There was thus no maladministration by the ELA in this regard. However, it was unclear how the ELA had dealt with the complainant’s administrative complaint. The ELA explained that it had initially misinterpreted the complaint, but that it had sent a reply to the complainant in the meantime. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with the conclusion that no further inquiries are justified on this aspect.

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to stop collaborating with an interim worker in its childcare services. The complainant was hired through an external contractor on weekly contracts. Following the Commission’s instructions, the contractor informed the complainant that the Commission would not request her services any longer. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman arguing that the Commission did not provide her with justified reasons for its decision.

The Ombudsman has consistently taken the view that, where EU institutions request the termination of a person’s contract with an external contractor, they should provide fair and objective reasons to justify the termination, inform the person concerned and ensure they are given the possibility to submit comments before the termination. The precarious nature of an interim worker’s situation implies that the Commission has a duty to be fair and transparent, even in the absence of a contractual relationship. In this case, the Commission did not ensure the complainant was granted a hearing and the opportunity to comment on the reasons given by the Commission before it decided to no longer request the complainant’s services. While this is regrettable, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant must have been made aware of some of the issues in the week leading up to the Commission’s decision. Due to the lack of record keeping, the Ombudsman is, however, not in a position to verify whether Commission staff discussed the issues with the complainant. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman welcomes the fact that the Commission acknowledged that it could have further explained its reasoning to the complainant in this case.

On this basis, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified and closes the case.