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 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 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.

 

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 Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (‘the Translation Centre’) assessed a tender in the field of translation and editing services. In particular, the complainant was concerned about the Translation Centre’s interpretation of the selection and award criteria and how it evaluated the award criteria, as well as with the Translation Centre’s decision to waive a procedural step of the ‘tender specifications’ (the rules applying to the procurement procedure).

The Ombudsman found that the Translation Centre failed to clearly define and distinguish between selection and award criteria in the tender specifications. This constituted maladministration. However, as the Translation Centre ultimately did not award any contract for the translation services at issue in the complaint, the Ombudsman considered that no useful purpose would be served by making a recommendation.

The Ombudsman nevertheless made a suggestion for improvement that, in future calls, the Translation Centre should clearly distinguish between selection and award criteria in the tender specifications in order to comply with the EU Financial Regulation. In this regard, the Translation Centre should also provide clear instructions on the kind of evidence to be provided for both selection and award criteria. The Ombudsman also stated that she would monitor future calls for tenders, and consider inquiring again into the matter, if need be.

The Ombudsman also pointed out that it is good administrative practice to make sure that tenderers are aware of any decision to waive procedural steps set out in the tender specifications, and that it was regrettable that the Translation Centre did not do so. The failure to inform tenderers of the waiver of a procedural step also constituted maladministration. Furthermore, the Ombudsman considered that waiving the procedural step is contrary to applicable rules. She made a corresponding suggestion for improvement in this regard.