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

Fundamental rights

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Showing 1 - 20 of 319 results

Decision in case 1476/2019/EWM on how the European Commission dealt with a request for public access to documents relating to a Commission blog post

Friday | 29 November 2019

The case concerned a request for public access to internal communication relating to a blog post published by the European Commission. The blog post was, following public criticism, removed from the Internet. The Commission identified one document as falling within the scope of the complainant’s request.

The complainant questioned whether the Commission had identified and released all relevant documents. He considered that, if it were the case that the Commission had actively deleted such communications or classified them as short-lived, this would have been in contradiction with the Commission’s obligations regarding openness.

The Ombudsman has inquired into the issue and does not consider the absence of any record or other evidence of the existence or deletion of written communications on this matter to be unreasonable. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 83/2019/KT on how the European Personnel Selection Office accommodated a candidate´s special needs in a selection procedure for EU civil servants

Wednesday | 27 November 2019

The complainant is a visually impaired candidate who participated in a selection procedure for EU civil servants organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO). She argued that, in a test, she was not given the special accommodation promised to her, which was a manual timer.

It was not possible to establish what type of device EPSO had given the complainant and whether the complainant had received instructions on how to use it. However, EPSO informed the Ombudsman that it was working on improving the information on special accommodation measures that it makes available to candidates.   

The Ombudsman closed the case with a suggestion to EPSO that it informs her of the updated information on special accommodation measures. The Ombudsman also suggested that candidates who are promised special measures be clearly informed, beforehand and in writing, about how they should proceed if they consider that there is a problem with these measures on the spot.

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

Wednesday | 20 November 2019

The case concerned a request for public access to documents held by the European Commission concerning the German Network Enforcement Act[1], a national law aimed at combating fake news on social networks.

The Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution, asking the Commission to re-consider its (partial) refusal to grant public access to the documents. The Commission did not reply within the deadline specified by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman then made a recommendation to the Commission.

The Commission responded that it did not accept the Ombudsman’s recommendation.

The Ombudsman regrets that the Commission did not follow her recommendation. She maintains her findings of maladministration.

 

[1] In German the “Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz”, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/.

Decision in case 1848/2018/KR on the European Commission’s rejection of an organisation's application in a call for proposals which aimed to establish support for European networks active in the area of rights of persons with disabilities

Thursday | 07 November 2019

The case concerned a 2017 grant procedure organised by the European Commission under the Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme. The complainant is the European Network on Independent Living (‘ENIL’), a Europe-wide network of people with disabilities, who applied for a grant under this procedure.

The Commission assessed ENIL’s application and decided not to recommend it for funding. The complainant alleged that the Commission had not evaluated its application fairly. The complainant also argued there was a lack of transparency preventing it from establishing in what respect its application for funding failed to meet the different evaluation criteria.

The Ombudsman inspected documents in the Commission’s file on the grant procedure and found no evidence of unfair treatment of the complainant. The Ombudsman concluded that the Commission’s reasoning and scoring in the assessment of the proposals was plausible and consistent.

The Ombudsman also assessed whether the Commission had provided the complainant with enough information about why its proposal was rejected. The Ombudsman found that the Commission had informed the complainant about why its bid was unsuccessful, including by meeting the complainant after the rejection letter had been sent out.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding no maladministration. She noted, however, that the Commission should give an entity seeking funding a full copy of the Commission’s overall assessment of the proposal, on request, including the marks awarded for each criterion and an explanation as regards why that mark was awarded.