The case concerned how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) handled a complaint related to test results in a recruitment procedure for standing corps officers. The complainant had not obtained the minimum overall score in a multiple-choice test (‘MCQ test’), to be able to proceed to the next step in the procedure. The complainant questioned his results and was concerned that he had been subject to racial and ethnic discrimination. The complainant asked for the questions and his answers, which Frontex did not give him.

Dissatisfied with how Frontex handled the matter, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked Frontex to consider providing the complainant with a list that shows, in the form of letters, the answers provided by the complainant and the correct answers in the MCQ test. Frontex provided the complainant with information along these lines.

The Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration in how Frontex calculated the complainant’s test scores, nor was there any indication of discrimination.

Given that Frontex provided the complainant with relevant information about the MCQ test in the course of the inquiry, there were no further inquiries justified into this aspect of the case. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a suggestion for improvement to Frontex that it should inform candidates in its recruitment procedures of the results obtained in any eliminatory test, by means of a grid stating, with regard to the number corresponding to each question, the answer given (in the form of a letter), as well as the correct answer (also in the form of a letter).  

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 was about how the European Commission informed the public about the status of its legislative initiative concerning the framework for sustainable food systems (FSFS), which formed part of the ‘Farm to Fork’ Strategy. Following this initiative’s inception and public consultation, the Commission did not include it in its 2024 work programme. The complainant, an organisation that participated in the public consultation, was concerned that the Commission had failed to inform the public about the initiative’s status and reasons for the delay in adopting a legislative proposal in relation to it.

During the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission explained that, in 2023, it had revised its political priorities due to economic disruptions caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the farmers’ protests throughout the EU, and broader stakeholder concerns about EU agriculture. In 2025, the Commission adopted a new ‘Vision for Agriculture and Food’. As this document did not mention the FSFS, the Commission believed it was clear to stakeholders that this initiative had been discontinued. Moreover, the Commission said that it was in the process of updating information on all its policy initiatives available on its website.

The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s commitment to provide greater transparency about the status of its policy initiatives and considered that no further inquiries into this matter were justified.

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.