The case concerned how the Commission dealt with a complaint that the Hungarian authorities breached EU  public procurement rules by awarding a contract for building two new reactors and refurbishing two other existing reactors at a nuclear power plant without an open tender. It also concerned how the Commission dealt with the complainant’s questions about its reasons to close the infringement procedure against Hungary.

The Ombudsman notes that the issue of whether the Hungarian authorities infringed EU public procurement rules is pending before the General Court. As such, and in line with the rules governing her work, the Ombudsman cannot examine the substance of this matter further.

Regarding the reply to the complainant’s questions, the Ombudsman identified a number of shortcomings, including a delay for which the Commission apologised. The Ombudsman found that, while the Commission is of the view that it replied, these replies could have been drafted in a more helpful and direct manner. The Ombudsman therefore suggests that the Commission provide the complainant with a more detailed reply and, on this basis, closes the case.

The complaint to the European Commission 1. On 5 April 2018, the complainant wrote to the European Commission. He was mainly concerned that the Slovak judiciary does not respect the right to a fair trial and the right to effective judicial protection. He referred to ongoing legal proceedings before Slovak courts to which he was a party and which had already lasted some 23 years. The European Commi...

The complainant took part in a recruitment procedure for EU civil servants organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO). The complainant turned to the Ombudsman complaining that EPSO had not assessed his professional experience correctly and that it had not replied to some questions.

The Ombudsman found no maladministration in relation to the assessment of the complainant’s professional experience. EPSO also answered the complainant’s questions in the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry and thus settled that aspect of the complaint.

1. The complainant works for the European Union. She complained to the European Commission that its Paymaster Office (PMO) does not ensure adequate access for persons with disabilities and serious illnesses regarding health insurance issues. Since she was not satisfied with the Commission’s reply, she turned to the Ombudsman. 2. The Ombudsman’s inquiry team contacted the Commission and asked it to...

The cases concerned how the Research Executive Agency (‘REA’) assessed a project focusing on the development of a technology. The complainant was concerned that the REA’s conduct and assessment had been unfair.

The Ombudsman examined the evidence provided by the complainant and found that the REA had taken adequate actions to settle the issues raised by the complainant. The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry.

The complaint to the European Central Bank 1. The complainant is a former ‘tied agent’ of an Irish financial institution (“the financial institution”).[1] He has been corresponding extensively with the European Central Bank (ECB) since 2016. 2. In May 2016, the complainant set out to the ECB his concerns about the financial institution’s past conduct. He asked the ECB to open an investigation on t...

The case concerned how the European External Action Service (EEAS) handled a complaint by a staff member in an EU civilian mission in Africa concerning a new policy for granting ‘travel days. Travel days are additional leave days given when staff members go on holiday entailing a long trip.

In the course of the inquiry, the EEAS settled its initial failure to reply to the complaint. On the basis of the explanations given by the EEAS, the Ombudsman found the new policy on travel days to be a logical understanding of the applicable rules. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

1. On 23 October 2016, the complainant sent an infringement complaint to the European Commission concerning the implementation of the Habitats Directive by Slovakia. As the Commission did not inform the complainant of its final assessment of the complaint, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman, on 28 September 2018. 2. The Ombudsman’s inquiry team contacted the European Commission. The ...

1. Em 8 de novembro de 2018, o queixoso escreveu ao EuropeDirect a respeito da iniciativa WiFi4EU. Não tendo recebido resposta após quase três meses, recorreu ao Provedor de Justiça. 2. A Unidade de Inquéritos do Provedor de Justiça contactou a Comissão Europeia. Neste seguimento, a Comissão respondeu ao queixoso, reenviando-lhe, igualmente, a comunicação prévia do EuropeDirect que o queixoso apar...

1. On 14 October 2018, the complainant sent an e-mail to the European Commission concerning the use of EU funds for a tunnel under the Świna River in Poland[1]. He requested the Commission to inform him how the co-financing in this project worked in practice. On 23 November 2018, the complainant sent a reminder and requested to be informed of the amount of the EU financing granted to the project. ...