The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dealt with requests for review from a candidate who was unsuccessful in two selection procedures. Amongst other things, the complainant contended that EPSO had not addressed adequately his concerns, and questioned whether it had adequately reviewed his performance.

After the Ombudsman opened the inquiry, EPSO provided additional replies to the complainant. The Ombudsman found that there were inconsistencies between these and the replies he initially received, and that it was not clear whether EPSO actually reviewed its initial decisions. In the course of the inquiry, EPSO provided further clarifications to explain this.

The Ombudsman closed the case finding that no further inquiries are justified, as EPSO ultimately provided reasonable explanations about how it handled the complainant’s requests for review. However, the inquiry revealed issues with EPSO’s standard replies to requests for review. To address these, the Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement to EPSO, asking it to ensure that, in future, candidates who have filed a request for review, receive a clear, accurate and complete reply that informs them whether a review has taken place and about the reasons for EPSO’s decision.

 

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) terminated the contract of an external expert following allegations of unprofessional conduct towards interpreters during an asylum support mission. The complainant argued that the decision lacked sufficient reasoning, that he had not been properly informed of the substance of the allegations, that his rights of defence had not been respected, and that the measures taken were disproportionate. The EUAA maintained that the termination of the contract was based on multiple credible reports of misconduct, that the complainant had been informed of the concerns through meetings and other communications, and that confidentiality considerations limited the disclosure of certain details.

The Ombudsman found that, although the termination letter itself did not clearly and sufficiently set out the factual and legal reasoning underpinning the decision, the broader context showed that the EUAA had engaged with the complainant on several occasions prior to the termination of his contract. The Ombudsman considered that the complainant had been made aware of the nature of the concerns and had been given opportunities to respond. The EUAA had also attempted to address the situation through less severe measures before proceeding to termination. While it would have been more in line with good administrative practice for the EUAA to keep more structured records and provide more detailed reasoning in the termination letter, the Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error of assessment or a procedural shortcoming sufficiently serious to amount to maladministration.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration in the EUAA’s handling of the decision to terminate the complainant’s contract.

The three cases concerned how the European Commission applied its Better Regulation rules and other procedural requirements when preparing legislative proposals concerning corporate sustainability due diligence (983/2025/MIK), countering migrant smuggling (2031/2024/VB) and the Common Agricultural Policy (1379/2024/MIK). The Commission considered these proposals to be urgent and, therefore, omitted steps foreseen in its rules, such as impact assessments and public consultations. The complainants, which are civil society organisations, considered these omissions to be in breach of the Commission’s Better Regulation rules. In two cases, the complainants also argued that the Commission failed to assess the legislative proposals’ consistency with the EU’s climate goals, as required by the European Climate Law. In one case, the complainant was further concerned that the Commission breached its Rules of Procedure on inter-service consultations.

Based on her inquiries, the Ombudsman found procedural shortcomings in how the Commission prepared the legislative proposals in question, which, taken together, amounted to maladministration. To address these shortcomings, the Ombudsman recommended that the Commission ensure a predictable, consistent and non-arbitrary application of its Better Regulation rules, by defining ‘urgent’ situations that justify a derogation from their requirements, as well as by recording and explaining the reasons for any derogations granted. Furthermore, where derogations are granted, the Commission should establish a procedure to ensure that the urgent preparation of legislative proposals still complies with the principles of a transparent, evidence-based and inclusive law-making process. To assist the Commission in this task, the Ombudsman also made four suggestions for improvement, which included: clarifying its stakeholder consultation rules for urgent proposals; ensuring that the analytical documents replacing impact assessments and outlining the evidence supporting its proposals are published in a timely manner to enable a public debate before the legislation is adopted; issuing guidance on implementing climate consistency assessments; providing and recording justifications when shortening inter-service consultation periods below established thresholds.

In its reply to the Ombudsman, the Commission agreed to reflect on defining ‘urgent’ situations during the upcoming revision of the Better Regulation rules, as well as to record and publish the reasons for applying any derogations from their requirements. The Commission also committed to ensure targeted consultations on its ‘urgent’ proposals, to publish the analytical documents with evidence supporting its proposals within three months of adoption, to include climate consistency assessments in both analytical documents and explanatory memoranda for future proposals and to provide justifications for shortened inter-service consultations.

The complainants, in their comments on the Commission’s reply, considered that the Commission’s commitments are neither clear nor concrete enough to guarantee a transparent, inclusive and evidence-based law-making process.

The Ombudsman welcomed the overall constructive reply of the Commission to her recommendations and suggestions for improvement. That said, the Commission’s response does not yet provide sufficient clarity on the concrete steps it intends to take to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations and suggestions for improvement.

The Ombudsman will therefore monitor this matter based on future complaints and once the Commission has finalised the revision of the Better Regulation rules. At this stage, no further inquiries are justified, and the Ombudsman closed the three cases.

The three cases concern how the European Commission applied its ‘Better Regulation’ rules and other procedural requirements when preparing legislative proposals concerning corporate sustainability due diligence (983/2025/MAS), countering migrant smuggling (2031/2024/VB) and the Common Agricultural Policy (1379/2024/MIK). The Commission considered these proposals to be urgent and, therefore, omitted steps foreseen in its rules, such as impact assessments and public consultations. The complainants, which are civil society organisations, considered these omissions to be in breach of the Commission’s ‘Better Regulation’ rules. In two cases, the complainants also argued that the Commission failed to check the legislative proposals’ consistency with the EU’s climate goals, as required by the European Climate Law. In one case, the complainant was further concerned that the Commission breached its Rules of Procedure on inter-service consultations.   

The Ombudsman opened inquiries into the three cases. She received the Commission’s written reply in all three cases, inspected the relevant files of the Commission and her inquiry teams met with representatives of the Commission in the context of two inquiries.

The Commission replied that the ‘Better Regulation’ rules are not binding law but a set of policy-making tools for collecting relevant information that should be applied in a proportionate manner. It also argued that it had collected all relevant evidence before adopting the legislative proposals in question, consulted stakeholders and conducted the climate consistency assessments and the inter-service consultation in line with the applicable rules.

Based on her inquiries, the Ombudsman found a number of procedural shortcomings in how the Commission prepared the legislative proposals that, taken together, amount to maladministration.

In particular, the Ombudsman found that the Commission adopted a broad interpretation of ‘urgency’ and failed to sufficiently justify the ‘urgency’ of the legislative proposals towards the public and to document its derogations from the applicable Better Regulation rules. The Ombudsman also found that the Commission has not put in place a procedure that would ensure, as required by the Treaties and case law, a transparent, evidence-based and inclusive preparation of ‘urgent’ legislative proposals. The Ombudsman further found that, by not keeping proper records of mandatory consistency checks of its proposals with the EU’s climate goals, the Commission failed to act in an accountable manner.

To address these shortcomings, the Ombudsman made two recommendations. The Ombudsman recommended that the Commission should ensure a predictable, consistent and non-arbitrary application of its Better Regulation rules, by defining ‘urgent’ situations that justify a derogation from the requirements set out in the rules. Furthermore, where derogations are granted, the Commission should establish a procedure to ensure that the urgent preparation of legislative proposals still complies with the principles of a transparent, evidence-based and inclusive law-making process. To assist the Commission in this task, the Ombudsman made four suggestions, which include clarifying its stakeholder consultation rules for urgent proposals and ensuring that the evidence supporting its proposals is published in good time to enable a public debate before legislation is adopted.