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 concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dealt with a complaint about unclear questions in a test in the context of a staff selection procedure for the EU civil service. The complainant argued that the problem was due to poor translation and was also concerned about how EPSO deals more generally with such complaints.

The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found that EPSO had dealt reasonably with the complaint in question, and that it had provided a satisfactory account of its practice and procedure for handling translation-related complaints in general.

While recognising that the circumstances for candidates to make a valid complaint may be challenging, given the stressful test situation and the fact that candidates cannot take notes, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified. The Ombudsman nonetheless suggested that EPSO should consider publishing additional instructions to candidates about the kind of information and descriptions required when submitting translation-related complaints.

The case concerned a staff member of the European Central Bank (ECB) who considered that he was harassed by his line manager. He complained about this in early 2021. The ECB launched an administrative inquiry, and at the same time assigned the complainant to another workplace in the ECB for his own protection.

The administrative inquiry took two and half years, and was closed three years after the complainant first asked for help. The administrative inquiry found that the complainant had been harassed, and formally initiated a disciplinary procedure against the line manager.

During the ECB’s follow-up to the outcome of the administrative inquiry, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman. He alleged that there were unreasonable delays in the process.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the ECB finalised the disciplinary procedure and the complainant eventually returned to his main workplace.

The Ombudsman found that there had been unreasonable delays in all phases of the ECB’s handling of the matter, and that the ECB had failed to address important issues in its follow-up. The Ombudsman therefore proposed a solution to the ECB, namely that it apologise, pay compensation and ensure meaningful internal communication to staff about the harassment case.

In its reply to the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, the ECB expressed regret for what had happened. It organised additional internal communication about the harassment case. It did not, however, find that it had the elements necessary for considering financial compensation. The Ombudsman found that the harm that was caused by the ECB’s handling of the complainant’s harassment case had regrettably not been repaired by the ECB’s response to the proposal for a solution. However, as a recommendation reiterating the same points would not appear to be useful, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with suggestions for systemic improvements and again asking the ECB to engage with the complainant to identify the relevant financial consequences of its maladministration.

The case concerned the handling of a harassment complaint from a staff member of an EU mission. The EU mission in question decided to open a ‘preliminary investigation’, but faced issues in actually starting it.

The complainant contacted the European Ombudsman when, after several months, the preliminary investigation appeared not to have begun.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry, asking the EEAS to give an account of the situation.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the EEAS actually began the preliminary investigation, which led to a report on the basis of which it was decided to open a disciplinary procedure.

The Ombudsman concluded that the delay in starting to carry out the preliminary investigation was a breach of the complainant’s fundamental right to a reasonable administrative handling time. The Ombudsman moreover concluded that there had been maladministration in the initial communication with the complainant.

However, given that the preliminary investigation had meanwhile led to the opening of a related disciplinary procedure, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry.