The case concerned the time taken by the European Commission to ensure Spain’s compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning Spain’s national rules as regards State liability for breaches of EU law. The complainant was concerned that the Commission was not taking timely and effective actions to ensure Spain’s compliance with the judgment.  

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had generally followed the matter actively from the adoption of the judgment. Although there was a period of approximately one year showing no documented trace of any action taken by the Commission, the time taken to pursue the matter could be partly attributed to the situation in Spain. In addition, the Ombudsman found reasonable the Commission’s position that, when a Member State shows willingness to take action, a dialogue may be the most efficient way forward.

The Ombudsman therefore concluded that, given the steps taken by the Commission so far, including the recent letter of formal notice sent to Spain, and considering the circumstances of the case that explain the timeline of the Commission’s actions, no further inquiries were justified at that point in time and closed the case.

The case concerned a recruitment procedure organised by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) for temporary staff of its standing corps. The complainant, a candidate in this procedure, had obtained the minimum overall score required for an eliminatory multiple-choice test (‘MCQ test’). However, Frontex excluded him from further participation in the recruitment procedure because he had not obtained the minimum score in each of the separate sections of the MCQ test. The complainant contended that his exclusion from the recruitment procedure was unfair because this requirement, which he considered arbitrary, had not been communicated to candidates before the MCQ test.

The Ombudsman considered that Frontex had discretion to establish the thresholds for the MCQ test at a later stage of the recruitment procedure, provided that it did so before knowing candidates’ individual performances. As Frontex had set the thresholds before the test took place, the Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration.

Nevertheless, the Ombudsman suggested that, where possible, Frontex consider informing candidates in its recruitment procedures of the thresholds for any eliminatory test prior to testing, to enhance transparency and allow candidates to better prepare for the test.

The Ombudsman further identified deficiencies in how Frontex kept records of the internal work done by the selection committee. The Ombudsman thus suggested that, for transparency and accountability reasons, Frontex improve the standards of clarity and accessibility to such records.