Αναζήτηση ερευνών

The case concerned the decision by the EU Delegation to Mauritania to terminate a contract for auditing services with an audit company. The Delegation argued that the audit company, which had its seat in Morocco, had failed to base its auditors in Mauritania permanently, despite its contractual obligation to do so. The Delegation had also decided to reject one of the audit reports that the company submitted because it deemed that the report had been signed by an unauthorised staff member of that company. The Delegation also refused to pay the company for the remaining reports.

The Ombudsman conducted an extensive inquiry. She found that the Delegation’s decision to reject the audit report and to terminate the contract was not unreasonable and did not amount to maladministration. The Ombudsman did not find maladministration in how the Delegation handled the subsequent amicable settlement procedure.

However, how the Delegation handled the communication with the complainant, in particular in providing comments on draft audit reports and explaining clearly its decisions, did amount to maladministration.

As these issues occurred five years ago, the Ombudsman considered that no purpose would be served by making a recommendation on that aspect of the complaint.

 

The complainant sought public access to the full list of projects funded by the EU that fall within the framework of the National Sanitation Program in Morocco (‘the program’).

The European Commission provided some information and documents concerning the EU’s financial contribution to the program. However, the Commission said that it did not hold the list requested by the complainant.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and confirmed that the Commission did not hold the list of projects. Since the right of public access to documents applies only to documents in the possession of the institution, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding no maladministration by the Commission.

The complainant worked as an expert for an external contractor of the EU Delegation to Algeria. The purpose of the contract was to provide technical assistance to the Algerian authorities in the context of an EU funded programme in the transport area. The Delegation asked that the complainant be replaced, with the result that the external contractor terminated his contract on the same day. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman arguing that the Delegation had not heard him before requesting his replacement.

While there may have been no legal obligation for the Delegation to hear the complainant, the Ombudsman has consistently taken the view that individuals whom the institutions ask to be replaced should be heard before they are dismissed. In this case, the Delegation did not do enough to reassure itself, after it had made its request, that the complainant had been heard. While this is regrettable, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant had been made aware of the issues, during the project. The Ombudsman further notes improvements that have been introduced in the meantime that should avoid similar incidents in the future. On this basis, she closes the case.

The case concerned a request to the European Parliament for public access to documents underlying a mission report of the Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control.

The Parliament was unable to identify any document as falling within the scope of the complainant’s request.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found the Parliament’s position to be reasonable. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the Commission’s refusal to grant full public access to a EURALIUS report on the “protection of property in Albania”. After consultation with EURALIUS on the access to document request, the Commission granted partial access and refused access to the remaining parts based on the need to protect international relations and the need to protect legal advice.

The Ombudsman found the Commission’s position to be reasonable. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned an error contained in a proposal for a twinning project, submitted by two Member States to the EU Delegation to the Republic of Azerbaijan. The error related to the fees of a senior expert involved in the project. Whilst the expert was entitled to a fee of EUR 1 750, she was paid only EUR 1 250 after completing the work. Once alerted, the EU Delegation refused to cover the remaining EUR 500 arguing that the error was of the Member States’ responsibility. The expert then complained to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman pointed out that the complainant had not been paid the correct fee solely because of the error. She took the view that it would have been reasonable for the EU Delegation simply to acknowledge that an error had been made and to release the funds necessary to pay the correct fee. Whilst acknowledging the Commission’s duty to protect the financial interests of the EU, the Ombudsman took the view that that duty should not be interpreted as preventing the Commission from correcting a manifest error committed to the detriment of an individual. She, therefore, made a proposal for a solution to the Commission that it pay the additional EUR 500.

The Commission accepted the proposal and the complainant is satisfied to have received the correct fee. The Ombudsman thereby closes the case.