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

HR issues

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Showing 1 - 20 of 691 results

Decision in case 1870/2019/JAP on the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit a candidate to a selection procedure for EU civil servants

Monday | 13 January 2020

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit the complainant to a selection procedure for EU civil servants in the field of security operations due to his lack of sufficient professional experience.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board had examined the information provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the application, and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 1752/2019/MDC on the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit a candidate to a selection procedure for EU civil servants due to his lack of professional experience

Friday | 10 January 2020

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit the complainant to a selection procedure for EU civil servants in the field of security operations due to his lack of professional experience.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board had examined the information provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the application, and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 1977/2019/VB on how the European Personnel Selection Office assessed the professional experience of a candidate in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of scientific research administrators

Thursday | 19 December 2019

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit the complainant to a selection procedure for EU civil servants in the field of quantitative and qualitative policy impact assessment/evaluation due to his lack of professional experience.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board had examined the information provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the application, and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 1832/2019/MDC on the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit a candidate to a selection procedure for EU civil servants due to his lack of professional experience

Wednesday | 18 December 2019

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit the complainant to a selection procedure for EU civil servants in the field of scientific research administration due to his lack of professional experience.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board had examined the information provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the application, and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 1173/2019/UNK on the European Commission’s Medical Service alleged use of genetic data in a recruitment procedure

Monday | 16 December 2019

The complainant complained to the Ombudsman that the European Commission’s Medical Service had collected and used his genetic data during a recruitment procedure.

The Ombudsman found that the Medical Service did not collect the complainant’s genetic data.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding that there was no maladministration.

Decision in case 771/2019/LM on how the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) selected ‘co-opted members’ for its Committee for Socio-economic Analysis

Tuesday | 10 December 2019

The case concerned the procedure for selecting ‘co-opted members’ of a committee which assists the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in its work, the Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC). The complainant, who had previously been a member of the SEAC, was not selected for another term as a co-opted member. He complained to the Ombudsman that the selection procedure was not transparent or fair, and that the call for expressions of interest did not mention the possibility to appeal decisions.

The Ombudsman found no maladministration in the selection procedure. However, she suggested that ECHA give applicants the possibility formally to request a review of the decision not to select them as co-opted committee members.