Търсене в проверки

The case concerned an article published in a French newspaper, in which the journalist claimed to have had access to a confidential letter sent by the complainants to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as part of a process for renewing the approval of an active substance used in pesticides. The complainants contended that EFSA had leaked that letter to the press, and that it did not have appropriate safeguards in place against unauthorised disclosure of confidential information by staff members. The complainants also argued that EFSA had not been objective and impartial in its statements to the press.

The Ombudsman found that the complainants had sent the letter in question not only to EFSA, but to other actors as well. Since EFSA was not the only body in possession of the letter, it was not possible to determine with certainty that EFSA had leaked the letter to the press. EFSA had conducted two internal inquiries into possible leaks and concluded that there was no evidence the leaks had come from an EFSA staff member. The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest that EFSA lacked proper safeguards against leaks. Regarding EFSA’s statements to the press, the Ombudsman concluded that EFSA had not breached its duties of objectivity and impartiality.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the finding that there had been no maladministration by EFSA in this case.

The complainant considered that the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation’s (Europol) public register of documents did not comply with EU rules on public access to documents.

The Ombudsman commended Europol’s past efforts towards establishing a register of documents and took note of its distinct characteristics, but also found room for improvement. She therefore proposed that Europol should update its register according to certain principles.

Europol agreed with the Ombudsman’s proposal and committed to take specific steps to implement the proposal in the short and medium term. The Ombudsman welcomed Europol’s decision to accept her proposal for a solution, and closed the inquiry.

The case concerned the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s (Frontex) public register of documents. The complainant contacted Frontex and argued that its register of documents did not comply with EU rules on public access to documents, and that Frontex had not included information about sensitive documents in its annual reports on public access. The complainant also took issue with Frontex’s policy by which non-EU residents do not, under normal circumstances, have the right to request public access to documents. Frontex replied to the complainant but did not commit to making any changes.

The Ombudsman commended Frontex’s past efforts towards establishing a register of documents and took note of its distinct characteristics, but also found room for improvement. She therefore proposed that Frontex should update its register according to certain principles. She also proposed that Frontex should publish the number of sensitive documents it holds that are not included in the register, as required by the applicable rules.

Frontex agreed with the Ombudsman’s proposal and laid out a number of steps it intends to take to implement the proposal in the short, medium and long term. The Ombudsman welcomed Frontex’s decision to accept her proposal for a solution and, given that she also found no maladministration in relation to how it deals with requests for access from non-EU residents, closed the inquiry.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) calculation of the complainant’s score in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board calculated the complainant’s score. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Делото се отнася до разглеждането от Комисията на две жалби за нарушение срещу Нидерландия във връзка с използването на електрически импулсен ток от риболовни кораби с бим тралове. Основното опасение на жалбоподателя е, че използването на електрически импулсен ток представлява системна заплаха за оцеляването на морските екосистеми и крайбрежните общности, които зависят от тях.

Комисията е разяснила на жалбоподателя причините, поради които счита, че не е налице нарушение на правото на Съюза, и го е информирала за намерението си да приключи случаите.

Комисията се ползва с широка свобода на преценка при вземането на решение дали да открие производство за установяване на неизпълнение на задължения от държава членка. Въпреки че омбудсманът признава важността на проблема, изложен от жалбоподателя, тя установява, че не е налице лошо управление по отношение на начина, по който Комисията е обяснила действията си по този случай. Тъй като Комисията обоснова също и забавянето при предоставянето на определени обяснения на жалбоподателя, омбудсманът установи, че липсват основания за по-нататъшни проверки по отношение на този аспект на случая.

Делото се отнася до начина, по който Органът за европейските политически партии и европейските политически фондации (APPF) спазва изискванията си за прозрачност и по-специално задълженията си за оповестяване и публикуване. Жалбоподателят счита, че APPF не е публикувал информация относно европейските политически партии и фондации по изчерпателен, актуален и лесен за ползване начин.

В хода на проверката на омбудсмана APPF е поел ангажимент да направи промени, за да разреши някои от въпросите, повдигнати в жалбата, като например включване на връзки към съответната информация на уебсайта на Европейския парламент, вмъкване на раздели на неговия уебсайт във връзка с липсваща информация и изготвяне на шаблон за получаване на информация от европейските политически партии по хармонизиран начин. Омбудсманът реши да приключи случая, тъй като липсват основания за по-нататъшни проверки.

Омбудсманът обаче счете, че APPF може да направи допълнителни подобрения на уебсайта си, за да гарантира, че предоставената информация е ясна, пълна, с възможност за извличане и за сравняване. Поради това тя направи три предложения за подобрение и поиска от APPF да докладва в срок от шест месеца.

 

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit the complainant to a selection procedure for EU staff in the field of audit due to his lack of professional experience.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board had examined the information provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the application, and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.