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 465 results

Decision in case 1541/2018/JN on the Research Executive Agency’s refusal to provide full access to documents related to its assessment of an EU-funded project

Wednesday | 14 August 2019

The case concerned the Research Executive Agency’s handling of several requests for access to documents made in the context of its assessment of an EU-funded project. The complainant, who represents a consortium having participated in the project, was dissatisfied that the Agency disclosed only redacted versions of the documents and criticised the Agency’s procedural conduct.

The Ombudsman found that the Agency’s handling of the requests was satisfactory both as regards the procedural aspects and the justification provided for partial disclosure only.

Decision in case 284/2019/JN on the European Commission’s refusal to disclose documents related to two state aid investigations concerning the Czech Post

Wednesday | 07 August 2019

The case concerned the European Commission’s refusal to disclose several documents forming part of files concerning its state aid investigations.

The Ombudsman examined the documents in question and considered that the Commission’s position is in line with the current case-law of the Court of Justice. Accordingly, the Ombudsman closed the case considering that there was no maladministration.

Decision in case 766/2018/PL on how the European Chemicals Agency conducted a consultation on a proposal to restrict lead in gunshot

Tuesday | 16 July 2019

The case concerns how the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) conducted a consultation of stakeholders on a proposal to restrict lead in gunshot used in wetlands. The complainant took issue with the wording of the questions and the fact that the consultation was available in English only.

The Ombudsman considers that the questions, and the opportunity to send general comments, allowed participants to express their views freely. Regarding languages, however, the Ombudsman found ECHA’s justification for using English only to be inadequate.

The Ombudsman therefore welcomes ECHA’s commitment for the future to consider translating into other languages at least parts of its consultations. Where ECHA restricts the use of languages, it should put in place relevant safeguards such as making available a summary in all EU official languages, making relevant supporting material available in as many languages as possible and, above all, making clear that responses can be submitted in any EU official language. This latter element is a fundamental right.

The Ombudsman closed the case with a suggestion to ECHA to avoid similar problems arising in the future.

Decision in case 2170/2017/JF on the European Commission’s allegedly wrong interpretation of the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications

Tuesday | 02 July 2019

The case concerned a letter the European Commission sent to the Italian authorities setting out its interpretation of the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications. The complainant claimed that the interpretation was wrong and in breach of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

As it is only the Court of Justice which can provide an authoritative interpretation of EU law, the Ombudsman limited the inquiry to examining whether the Commission adequately explained its interpretation to the complainant. She finds that, overall, the Commission has addressed the arguments raised by the complainant and provided reasonable replies.

The Ombudsman therefore concludes that no further inquiries into the complaint are justified and closes the case.