The case concerned the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s (Frontex) failure to provide a substantive response to an administrative complaint related to allegations of harassment and irregularities made by a Category 2 Standing Corps officer.

The complainant filed the administrative complaint with Frontex in March 2023. Frontex replied that, contrary to previous information it had provided to the complainant, the latter did not have the right to make such a complaint. Consequently, he would not receive a substantive response. However, in the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, Frontex said it would provide a general substantive response to the complainant by November 2024. Frontex provided this response to the complainant in December 2025 only. The Ombudsman found that the inconsistent information provided to the complainant and the egregious delay in responding to the complaint constitute maladministration. However, the Ombudsman did not find it necessary to make a recommendation, given that Frontex has now provided a substantive response to the complainant.

Additionally, the Ombudsman’s inquiry revealed the absence of an effective complaint and redress mechanism for Category 2 officers, such as in harassment situations at Frontex. The Ombudsman concluded that this is a systemic issue that also constitutes maladministration.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Frontex Management Board introduce an effective complaint and redress mechanism in the upcoming revision of the legal framework for Category 2 officers.

This own-initiative inquiry assessed how the European Commission intends to guarantee respect for human rights in the context of the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Concerns have been raised about the nature of the MoU in general and about support for border control initiatives in particular, especially in the light of deeply disturbing reports regarding how the Tunisian authorities deal with migrants.

The Ombudsman was particularly concerned about the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment (HRIA), notably related to the 'Migration and mobility' pillar of the MoU and the projects set to come under  that pillar. As that pillar of the MoU is clearly designed to restrict and discourage irregular migration to the EU through better migration control by Tunisian authorities, the implementation of projects putting this objective into practice very obviously has a human rights dimension. The Ombudsman asked the Commission to reply to a series of questions about how it intends to monitor the human rights impact of actions under the MoU and what measures it has anticipated and planned for, including with regard to the possible suspension of EU funding, if human rights violations are identified.

The Ombudsman found that,  despite repeated claims by the Commission  that there was no need for a prior HRIA, it had in fact completed a risk management exercise for Tunisia before the MoU was signed.

This exercise, which the Commission said it conducts with all EU partner countries that might receive EU budget support, took into account criteria similar to those used in standard prior HRIA. These assess - among other matters - the state of human rights, democracy, the rule of law, security and conflict in the relevant partner country. The Commission had, however, not proactively shared this information, including in its reply to the Ombudsman’s strategic initiative on this matter.

The Ombudsman made suggestions on how to address this. She also, - given the extent of the risks identified - suggested that the Commission elaborate concrete criteria for the possible suspension of  EU-funded contracts related to migration management where it finds evidence of human rights violations in the implementation of projects. In this context, the Ombudsman suggested that the Commission encourage its implementing partners to set up complaint mechanisms for individuals to report alleged violations of their human rights in the implementation of EU-funded projects/programmes in Tunisia. Given recent reports of significant problems on the ground, this has assumed even greater importance.

The case concerned how the European Commission ensures fundamental rights compliance in the context of EU funds granted to Greece for border management. The complainants, several non-governmental organisations, raised concerns that the Commission had failed effectively to monitor and evaluate EU-funded border management activities, against a background of persistent allegations of serious human rights violations by the Greek authorities.

The inquiry identified areas that the Commission should address to improve how it monitors and ensures compliance with fundamental rights in this area. However, as the Commission is currently awaiting a final report from the Greek authorities in one of the individual cases of alleged fundamental rights violations raised in this inquiry, and will also now assess Greece’s spending under the relevant programme, the Ombudsman closed the case, finding that no further inquiries were justified. She nevertheless set out some suggestions to the Commission to address the issues identified in the course of the inquiry.

In particular, the Ombudsman urged the Commission to put in place guidelines for assessing compliance with fundamental rights throughout the course of the programme implementation, notably regarding the related ‘enabling condition’ for accessing funds. As part of these guidelines, the Commission should establish criteria to determine under what circumstances it will withhold or suspend EU funds for non-compliance with fundamental rights and the related funding condition, and publish these criteria. In its assessment of credible complaints about fundamental rights violations and of the overall Greek programme, the Commission should consider whether Greece continues to fulfil the fundamental rights condition related to the funds in question. The Ombudsman also made suggestions about the transparency of the monitoring process and measures to strengthen the involvement of civil society.

 

The case concerned the decision by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to dismiss a complaint related to technical issues encountered by a candidate during a remote test in the context of an EU staff selection procedure organised by EPSO. The complainant took issue with EPSO’s decision to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the complainant had not raised the issue during the tests.

The Ombudsman found that there was maladministration in how EPSO handled the complaint. In particular, EPSO should have given due consideration to the information to which it had access, which confirmed the facts reported by the complainant, and looked into the complaint. The failure to do so amounted to maladministration.

To address this, the Ombudsman made a suggestion that EPSO enters into dialogue with the complainant with a view to finding an appropriate and fair solution, such as offering the complainant the opportunity to re-sit the tests.