Vyhledat šetření

The case concerned the alleged failure of the European Investment Bank (EIB) Complaints Mechanism to handle a complaint in a timely manner. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the delay was justified due to the complexity of the subject matter of the complaint. The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration by the EIB.

Při provádění šetření veřejná ochránkyně práv zvažovala jak povinnost Komise zajistit řádné finanční řízení, zejména tím, že se vyhne neoprávněným nebo chybným platbám, tak základní právo dodavatelů a příjemců na řádnou správu spočívající především v tom, že jsou jejich platební nároky vyřizovány v přiměřené lhůtě.

Veřejná ochránkyně práv si vyžádala informace o počtu a procentním podílu případů, kdy došlo ke zpoždění plateb, délce jejich zpoždění, výši částek a případech, kdy byl hrazen úrok z důvodu opožděné platby. Veřejná ochránkyně práv rovněž provedla kontrolu na místě, aby lépe pochopila, jak daný platební proces funguje v praxi.

Veřejná ochránkyně práv zaznamenala, že se celkový procentní podíl pozdních plateb od roku 2013 zvýšil, a to v důsledku dvou hlavních faktorů. Za prvé, současné finanční nařízení, které vstoupilo v platnost dne 1. ledna 2013, stanovilo kratší platební lhůty. Za druhé, rozpočtový orgán EU (tj. Evropský parlament a Rada) omezil v roce 2014 výši „prostředků na platby“, což jsou peníze přidělované institucím k hrazení účtů během celého roku.

Veřejná ochránkyně práv vítá pokrok, jehož Komise dosáhla při snižování počtu a objemu pozdních plateb v roce 2015 poté, co v roce 2014 dosáhly svého vrcholu. Uznává, že nedostatek prostředků na platby představoval výjimečný faktor mimo kontrolu Komise. Veřejná ochránkyně práv dále zaznamenala, že vyšší průměr pozdních plateb od roku 2013 neznamená, že se výkon Komise v absolutních hodnotách zhoršil. Veřejná ochránkyně práv současně zdůrazňuje, že Komise musí vyvinout značné úsilí, aby dodržela kratší zákonné lhůty stanovené současným finančním nařízením.

Kontrola veřejné ochránkyně práv ukázala, že Komise pečlivě sleduje své kroky v této oblasti a že vypracovala mnoho správných postupů. Veřejná ochránkyně práv nicméně vyjadřuje své obavy z toho, že některá nedávná opatření ohlášená Komisí byla zmíněna již v roce 2010 po konzultacích, které veřejná ochránkyně práv zahájila v rámci předchozího šetření.

Veřejná ochránkyně práv tudíž vyzývá Komisi, aby zvýšila své úsilí v oblasti koordinace finančních a provozních kontrol, vytvořila on-line nástroje, snažila se řešit v co nejvyšší možné míře fluktuaci zaměstnanců, řídila pozastavování plateb a registrovala včas faktury. V tomto směru předložila řadu návrhů.

The case concerned the failure by the European Commission to reply to the complainant’s request for a legal review of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency’s decision to reject his project from EU funding under the Erasmus+ programme. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission had already replied to the complainant. She therefore considered this part of the complaint as settled by the institution. She also examined the substance of the Commission’s reply and found it comprehensive and reasonable. She therefore decided that there was no maladministration.

The case concerned the failure by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises (EASME) to reply to the complainant’s request for review following a recruitment procedure for a contract agent.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and asked EASME to reply to the complainant and address her concerns about her exclusion from the ‘reserve list’ of successful candidates. In its reply, EASME apologised for what it described as “an unfortunate event”, which should not have happened, and explained why the complainant had not been included in the reserve list.

The Ombudsman found EASME’s explanations about the complainant’s exclusion convincing. However, she regretted the fact that it had taken EASME one year to reply to the complainant’s request for review, and that it had done so only after the Ombudsman’s intervention. The Ombudsman encouraged EASME to take steps to ensure that similar incidents do not occur in the future.

The case concerned the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to allow the complainant to submit a second application in the context of a call for expressions of interest which contained no specific deadline for the submission of applications. The complainant sought to submit a second application after failing to pass the test linked to his initial application under the same selection procedure. The complainant argued that EPSO failed to provide adequate replies to his letters concerning (i) the legal basis for not allowing candidates to reapply in selection procedures without any specific closing dates; and (ii) the conditions, including the behaviour of staff, at the test centre in Spain.

In its response, EPSO referred to the conditions set out in the call for expressions of interest as the legal basis for its actions. It also explained that it had investigated the matter concerning the behaviour of the staff at the test centre.

The Ombudsman found EPSO’s explanation to be reasonable and adequate, so the case was closed.

The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s messages concerning its difficulties with the submission of a grant proposal. Due to technical problems, the complainant was not able to apply through the Commission’s system PRIAMOS. Instead, it submitted its proposal by e-mail, which remained unanswered.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and asked the Commission to reply. In its reply, the Commission apologised for not having replied earlier. It said that it could not accept the complainant’s e-mail application because the system had functioned properly and the Commission had not been able to identify any attempts by the complainant to send the proposal via PRIAMOS before the deadline.

The case concerned EPSO’s actions following a computer-server crash during a test and EPSO's handling of the complainant's requests for review and for access to documents.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that EPSO (i) did not deal properly with the situation arising from the computer crash, (ii) failed to deal properly with the complainant's request for review and (iii) failed to handle properly the complainant's request for access to documents. Therefore, the Ombudsman made three recommendations to EPSO.

EPSO accepted the Ombudsman's first recommendation regarding how it should deal with technical problems during a computer-based test. The second recommendation was that EPSO should provide the complainant with a detailed explanation of how it had dealt with his request for a review. The Ombudsman did not find EPSO's response on this to be convincing and that EPSO’s handling of the request for a review constituted maladministration. Finally, EPSO did not accept the Ombudsman's third recommendation regarding the provision of access to documents. The Ombudsman found that EPSO’s failure to provide further documents also constituted maladministration. In addition to two findings of maladministration, the Ombudsman also made a suggestion to EPSO on how it could improve its contact service for candidates.  

This case concerned the European Commission's handling of information submitted by the complainant, alleging three cases of unlawful State aid granted to Spanish football clubs. The complainant argued that the Commission had failed to decide within a reasonable time whether it should open a formal investigation into the allegedly illegal State aid. Since, in the complainant's view, the Commission was failing to take action, the complainant made a request for access to some documents related to two of these cases. The Commission refused to give access on grounds of the protection of the purpose of the investigations.

The case concerned delays encountered in the authorisation of twenty applications for genetically modified food and feed. The complainants informed the Commission of their concerns on several occasions. In their view, the Commission's explanations and the persistent delays were unacceptable. Therefore, the complainants turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the delays affecting the twenty applications were not justified. In the course of the inquiry, the Commission dealt with all the pending applications. The Ombudsman concluded, however, that the delays reflected a systemic problem rather than being the result of matters specific to the particular authorisation applications. In closing the inquiry, the Ombudsman found that the delays constituted maladministration on the part of the Commission.