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 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 case concerned a request for public access to documents drawn up in the context of a European Commission audit concerning compliance by farmers in Lithuania with environmental requirements that they have to meet to receive EU funding.

The Commission refused to give public access to the documents arguing that disclosure would put the successful completion of the audit at risk.

Based on the inspection of relevant documents, the Ombudsman found that the Commission was justified in refusing public access to the documents at issue. She thus closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

That said, as the Commission has in the meantime confirmed that the audit has been concluded, the Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will grant the widest possible access to the documents, if the complainant were to pursue the matter.

The case concerned the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency’s (CINEA) decision to terminate a grant agreement in the area of renewable transport and to recover the full amount of its financial contribution to the project.

The Ombudsman found that CINEA had failed to follow the procedure set out in the grant agreement and that there were indications that CINEA’s decision may not have been entirely fair and proportionate. However, given the complainant´s insolvency and the fact that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has been investigating potential irregularities in the context of the project, CINEA cannot be expected to meaningfully review its decision at this stage. Therefore, the Ombudsman concluded that no further inquiries are justified and closed the case.

The Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement to CINEA to ensure that similar issues do not arise in future cases.

The complaint concerned the European Central Bank’s (ECB) refusal to grant parental leave to a staff member employed under a temporary secondment contract (ESCB/IO) used for exchanges with national central banks and with a maximum duration of three years. The complainant argued that excluding staff on such contracts from parental leave breached the principle of equal treatment and the right to parental leave under Article 33(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The ECB maintained that its rules were justified by the specific and temporary nature of ESCB/IO contracts, the need to ensure operational continuity, and the fact that staff retained access to parental leave under their national employment systems. It argued that Article 33(2) of the Charter does not confer an unconditional right to parental leave and that it retained discretion to determine the applicable conditions.

The Ombudsman found that the ECB had failed to demonstrate that refusing the fundamental right to parental leave for ESCB/IO staff was justified and proportionate, or that less restrictive measures could not be adopted. The Ombudsman also considered that the possibility of taking parental leave later under national law was not an adequate substitute for exercising that right when most relevant for the care of a young child.

The Ombudsman concluded that this constituted maladministration and recommended that the ECB review its rules on short-term employment to ensure proportionate access to parental leave, particularly for ESCB/IO contracts renewed beyond an initial period.

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.