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.

The case concerned a study produced by a research organisation under a contract with the EU Delegation to Guinea-Bissau. The organisation raised concerns about conditions related to the publication of the study, notably that it should be distributed free of charge. The organisation considered that this condition would effectively prevent the publication of the study as an academic book, as academic publishers are commercial entities who make profit on books they publish.

The inquiry demonstrated that the study had been commissioned under a ‘service contract’, as part of which the European Commission - which is responsible for the overall budget in question - acquired the ownership of the study. As such, the study was considered a ‘public good’, and the Commission was correct to insist that it be made available to the public free of charge.

The Ombudsman considered that it was reasonable of the Commission to insist that the study be distributed free of charge, given that it was produced using EU funds and thus should not be commercialised. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman found it regrettable that the Commission had specified in a clear manner the conditions regarding publication only after the study had been completed. The Ombudsman closed the case finding that no further inquiries were justified but made a suggestion to avoid similar issues occurring in the future.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dealt with a request from a candidate who had recently given birth to reschedule an oral test (interview) in a selection procedure for technical support experts. EPSO had agreed to reschedule one interview but rescheduled it to take place on the same day as another interview related to the selection procedure. The complainant was dissatisfied with how EPSO had dealt with her administrative complaint regarding the matter.

The Ombudsman took the view that it was not reasonable for EPSO to schedule two tests on the same day, as all other candidates were able to sit the tests on separate days. This was particularly difficult for the complainant, as she had recently given birth. How EPSO dealt with the request therefore constituted maladministration. To address this the Ombudsman made a suggestion to EPSO to enter into dialogue with the complainant with a view to finding an appropriate and fair solution.