You have a complaint
against an EU institution or body?

Search cases

Text search

Document type

Institution concerned

Type of settlement

Case number

Language

Date range

Keywords

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Showing 1 - 20 of 285 results

Decision in case 1353/2018/KT against the European Personnel Selection Office concerning the rescheduling of tests of a candidate with a disability in a selection procedure to recruit EU civil servants

Tuesday | 02 July 2019

This case against the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) concerned the rescheduling of the ‘computer-based tests’ for a candidate with a disability who took part in a selection procedure for EU civil servants. The complainant contended that EPSO did not communicate clearly to him how he could reschedule his test appointment. He further argued that EPSO was wrong to refuse to reschedule an appointment he missed due to illness.

In the course of the inquiry, EPSO informed the Ombudsman that, prior to the test, all candidates can make requests online to reschedule. In this case, EPSO assisted the complainant by directly asking the contractor carrying out the tests to reschedule his appointment twice.

The Ombudsman also found that EPSO was justified in refusing to reschedule the test that the complainant missed, as he had not provided a medical certificate proving that he was unable to attend due to illness. The Ombudsman therefore concluded that there was no maladministration by EPSO.

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 552/2018/MIG on the European Commission’s refusal of public access to documents concerning the German Network Enforcement Act

Tuesday | 11 June 2019

The case concerned a refusal by the Commission, in 2017, to give a Member of the European Parliament public access to Commission documents regarding a new German social media law. The complainant considered that the Commission had failed to identify all the documents falling within the scope of her request. Regarding those documents it did identify, she considered that the Commission had wrongly redacted the documents.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had failed to identify all the documents falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. She also found that the redactions made by the Commission were excessive. She thus proposed that the Commission reassess the scope of the request and reconsider its decision to (partially) deny access to the identified documents.

The Commission did not follow this solution proposal. As the Ombudsman considers the Commission’s handling of the complainant’s access request to constitute maladministration, she makes a corresponding recommendation and expresses her concern at the inordinate length of time the Commission has taken in dealing with this matter.

Decision in the joint inquiry in cases 1337/2017/EA and 1338/2017/EA on the accessibility for visually impaired candidates of selection procedures to recruit EU civil servants, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office

Monday | 03 June 2019

The case concerned two complaints from visually impaired candidates who participated in selection procedures for recruiting EU civil servants, which were organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO). The complainants faced issues with the online application forms, which were not fully accessible for people using ‘screen readers’. The complainants also considered that EPSO had failed to accommodate their special needs during the computer-based tests, as they were not able to sit the tests independently.

The Ombudsman found that EPSO’s actions constituted maladministration. She recommended that EPSO make its online application forms fully accessible for visually impaired candidates as soon as possible. She also recommended that EPSO set out a detailed timeline for ensuring that assistive technologies are provided to candidates during the computer-based tests that take place in testing centres around the world. Lastly, she recommended that EPSO explicitly inform candidates that certain measures for accommodating special needs, such as assistive technologies, are currently available only at specific stages of selection procedures.

The Ombudsman welcomes that EPSO, in response to her recommendations, updated the information provided to candidates on measures for accommodating their special needs. She also welcomes EPSO’s proposal to enable visually impaired candidates to sit computer-based tests off-site, using remote access technologies. However, the Ombudsman is not fully satisfied with the timeline proposed by EPSO for making its online application form fully accessible. She therefore closes her inquiry by restating this recommendation to EPSO and considering the other matters as settled.