The case concerned the transfer of national pension rights into the pension scheme for EU staff members. In 2009, the European Commission put thousands of applications on hold because it believed it needed to update the rules governing the pension scheme. The complainant argued that the resulting delay in handling her application was in breach of the principles of good administration.

While the Ombudsman identified administrative shortcomings in terms of delays and inadequate information to the complainant, the inquiry showed that the Commission is now in compliance with principles of good administration. To avoid similar problems in future, the Ombudsman suggested to the Commission that it improve the procedure by introducing a deadline for determining the admissibility of requests to transfer pension rights or explain why it is not feasible or reasonable to do so. The Ombudsman also invited the Commission to take contact with the complainant on the matter of ex gratia compensation.

On this basis, the Ombudsman closed the case.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) alleged failure to provide the complainant with appropriate measures to accommodate his learning difficulties in the context of a selection procedure for EU civil servants in the field of audit - EPSO/AD/357/18.

The complainant had raised the same issue with EPSO in a different selection procedure (EPSO/AD/338/17) and brought a discrimination case to the General Court of the European Union. He asked the Ombudsman to ask EPSO to apply the remedies that the Court might award to him also in the other selection procedure (EPSO/AD/357/18).

The Ombudsman proposed such a solution to EPSO. EPSO said that while it could not accept the Ombudsman’s proposal while the case was still pending before the Court, it would seek to apply a fair solution once there is a judgement.

The Ombudsman considers that EPSO’s position is reasonable. She closes the inquiry, maintaining that - when the time comes - EPSO should apply any outcome of the Court case in favour of the complainant also in the context of selection procedure EPSO/AD/357/18. She will ask EPSO to keep her informed of relevant developments.

The case concerned the European Commission’s refusal to grant public access to the job description of its Coordinator on Combating Anti-Semitism on the ground that disclosure would undermine the privacy and the integrity of the post holder.

The Ombudsman found that the complainant had put forward a necessity for the disclosure of the requested job description and proposed, as a solution, that the Commission should release the document.

The Commission agreed to release the job description, which resolved the complaint.

The case concerned the way in which the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) assessed the complainant’s application in a selection procedure for the recruitment of a project adviser.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found nothing to suggest a manifest error in the selection committee’s assessment of the complainant’s qualifications and professional experience. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned how the EEAS handled an e-mail with harassment allegations, sent to its Mediation Service by a staff member in an EU Delegation. In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the EEAS explained how the Mediation Service had dealt with the complainant’s concerns and why the file had been closed.

The Ombudsman found that the explanations given by the EEAS were reasonable. The EEAS Mediation Service handled the complainant’s harassment claim in an informal way, in line with its mandate. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the finding that there was no maladministration by the EEAS.

The complainant is included on a shortlist of candidates from which the Publications Office of the European Union (`Publications Office´) may recruit staff as proof-readers. He complained that the Publications Office did not consider him in the context of a vacancy and eventually recruited a candidate who was on a shortlist drawn up for the staff needs of another EU institution.

The Ombudsman found that, as the Publications Office had interviewed and rejected the complainant for a post with the same profile a few months earlier, it was justified in not inviting him to an interview for a similar post that became vacant shortly afterwards.

The Ombudsman closed the case finding no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Commission’s alleged failure to deal properly with a request for assistance. The request was made by a person whose contract was terminated by the contractor that engaged her to work on an EU funded project and that had a service contract with the EU Delegation to Sierra Leone. Among other things, the complainant complained about an EU official’s complicity in harassment by a third party.

The Ombudsman found that the allegation of complicity as regards harassment was not substantiated. Moreover, the Ombudsman considered reasonable the explanations which the Commission gave for its position.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.