The case concerned how the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) addressed allegations of fundamental rights violations in its activities on the Greek island of Samos. The complainants were concerned that the way caseworkers deployed in the EUAA asylum support teams conducted interviews with vulnerable asylum seekers was against EU law, and that the EUAA had failed to address this. In addition, the complainants were concerned with how the EUAA dealt with the asylum seekers’ reports of pushbacks.

The Ombudsman found that, at the time of the complaint, the EUAA had failed to ensure that caseworkers deployed in its asylum support teams were prepared to properly conduct interviews with vulnerable asylum seekers, including as regards how to take into account indicators of vulnerabilities when these emerge for the first time during the asylum interview. The Ombudsman further found that the EUAA had failed to provide vulnerable asylum seekers with an appropriate procedure to report mistakes made during interviews and to have such reports reviewed by the EUAA. The Ombudsman found that this constituted maladministration and made four recommendations to the EUAA to address the shortcomings.

The Ombudsman also sent these recommendations to her counterparts from the European Network of Ombudsmen (ENO), seeking their views on how compliance with fundamental rights is ensured in the cooperation between EUAA caseworkers and national asylum officials.

In addition, the Ombudsman identified important shortcomings in relation to how the EUAA dealt with the asylum seekers’ disclosure of experiences of pushbacks during interviews. As the EUAA started implementing measures to remedy these shortcomings during the Ombudsman’s inquiry, she did not find maladministration but instead made two suggestions for improvement.

The complaint concerned the European Central Bank’s (ECB) refusal to grant parental leave to a staff member employed under a temporary secondment contract (ESCB/IO) used for exchanges with national central banks and with a maximum duration of three years. The complainant argued that excluding staff on such contracts from parental leave breached the principle of equal treatment and the right to parental leave under Article 33(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The ECB maintained that its rules were justified by the specific and temporary nature of ESCB/IO contracts, the need to ensure operational continuity, and the fact that staff retained access to parental leave under their national employment systems. It argued that Article 33(2) of the Charter does not confer an unconditional right to parental leave and that it retained discretion to determine the applicable conditions.

The Ombudsman found that the ECB had failed to demonstrate that refusing the fundamental right to parental leave for ESCB/IO staff was justified and proportionate, or that less restrictive measures could not be adopted. The Ombudsman also considered that the possibility of taking parental leave later under national law was not an adequate substitute for exercising that right when most relevant for the care of a young child.

The Ombudsman concluded that this constituted maladministration and recommended that the ECB review its rules on short-term employment to ensure proportionate access to parental leave, particularly for ESCB/IO contracts renewed beyond an initial period.

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.

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.

 

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.