Sie möchten Beschwerde gegen ein EU-Organ oder eine EU-Einrichtung einlegen?

Untersuchungen suchen

Fall
Datums-Bereich
Schlüsselwörter
Oder versuchen Sie alte Stichwörter (vor 2016)

Anzeige 1-20 der 791 Treffer

Decision on the time taken by the European Parliament to deal with a request to recognise that a staff member’s medical condition is an ‘occupational disease’ (case 286/2022/VS)

Dienstag | 19 Juli 2022

The case concerned the time taken by the European Parliament to deal with a staff member’s request to recognise her condition as an ‘occupational disease’.

The Ombudsman wrote to the Parliament reminding it that principles of good administration require EU institutions to take decisions within a reasonable time frame and that this is particularly important when the decision is related to the health of the person concerned.

Following updates from the Parliament and the complainant showing that the Parliament had taken a decision on the request in June 2022, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that the matter has been settled.

 

Decision on the time taken by the European Commission to handle an appeal concerning the decision to apply a ‘medical reserve’ on a newly recruited staff member (case 1609/2021/VS)

Freitag | 15 Juli 2022

The case concerned the time taken by the European Commission to deal with an appeal concerning its decision to apply a ‘medical reserve’ on a newly recruited staff member.

The Ombudsman wrote to the Commission reminding it that principles of good administration require EU institutions to take decisions within a reasonable time frame and that this is particularly important when the decision is related to the health of the person concerned and to social security cover.

Following updates from the Commission and the complainant showing that the Commission took a final decision on the appeal in March 2022, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that the substantive matter has been settled. The Ombudsman expects the Commission in future to handle similar procedures in a timely manner.

 

Decision on how the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) dealt with a Horizon 2020 funding proposal for the Enhanced European Innovation Council Accelerator Pilot (case 2097/2021/FA)

Freitag | 15 Juli 2022

The case concerned how the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) dealt with a proposal for funding under the Enhanced European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator Pilot.

The complainant took issue with how EASME evaluated its proposal as well as with the lack of information received on the evaluation and possibilities for review. The complainant was also concerned with the delay by EASME in replying to his request that it review its decision.  

In the course of the inquiry, the European Innovation Council and SME Executive Agency (EISMEA), which succeeded and replaced EASME, explained why there was a delay in the review procedure. The Ombudsman considered that the explanation was reasonable. The Ombudsman also found that EASME had provided sufficient information to the complainant on the evaluation and possibilities for review. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman found that the feedback provided by EASME to the complainant was not sufficient, and did not allow a meaningful review of the evaluation of the proposal. The Ombudsman noted that, in the context of the new EIC Accelerator programme, EISMEA appears to provide more detailed feedback to applicants on the evaluation of their proposals.

The Ombudsman thus considered that no further inquiries were justified in this case and closed the inquiry.

Decision on how the European Commission applied the moderation policy for its staff intranet to a post on a discussion forum (case 9/2022/NH)

Mittwoch | 01 Juni 2022

The case concerned a message related to the COVID-19 pandemic that was posted on the European Commission’s intranet forum, which is reserved for Commission staff members. The complainant, a Commission staff member, had reported the message as hate speech and wanted the Commission to remove it. The Commission refused and the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s decision not to remove the message was reasonable because it did not consider the message to be hate speech or contrary to its moderation policy. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration in this case.