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

Failure to reason decisions [Articles 18)

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Showing 1 - 20 of 270 results

Decision in case 1801/2019/JAP on how the European Personnel Selection Office assessed the professional experience of a candidate in a procedure for recruiting EU civil servants

Friday | 17 January 2020

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of security operations.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore 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 1022/2018/NH on the European Commission’s failure to provide detailed feedback and information related to the complainant’s participation in a selection procedure for the post of principal advisor to a Director-General

Thursday | 14 November 2019

The complainant participated in a special selection procedure organised by the European Commission to recruit a Croatian Principal Advisor. She turned to the Ombudsman to complain about the Commission’s failure to provide her with detailed feedback on how it had assessed her application, as well as other information and documents regarding the selection procedure.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission provided detailed feedback and further explanations regarding the selection procedure. The Ombudsman thus considered the main aspects of the case to have been settled. The Ombudsman found no maladministration in the Commission not disclosing certain documents or as regards the complainant’s concern about age discrimination.

The Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement for the Commission to give more timely and tailored feedback in the future.

Decision in case 1442/2018/PB on the way Eurojust conducted a recruitment procedure for a legal officer post

Thursday | 07 November 2019

The case concerned a recruitment procedure that Eurojust organised to recruit a legal officer for its Legal Affairs Office. The complainant was a candidate whom Eurojust did not invite for an interview. He asked the Ombudsman to examine whether Eurojust had discriminated against him, misused its powers and/or wrongly assessed his application.

The Ombudsman found no indication of discrimination or abuse of power in the recruitment procedure. The Ombudsman’s inquiry also showed that the assessment of candidates had been done in an objective and consistent manner and in an effort to meet the real needs of its Legal Affairs Office. The Ombudsman, however, identified the following shortcoming: Eurojust’s assessment did not fully and visibly reflect the understanding that an applicant could reasonably have had of the selection criteria in the vacancy notice. As the Ombudsman trusts that Eurojust will address the issues identified for the future, she closed the case by making suggestions for improvement.

Decision in case 1151/2019/LM on the alleged failure by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to take into account the language chosen by a candidate to sit a test

Friday | 25 October 2019

The complainant took part in a selection procedure for the recruitment of secretaries to the EU civil service, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office. One of the tests of the selection procedure assessed the candidates’ skills in using Microsoft Office. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman, arguing that she had to sit the test in a language different to the one she had chosen.

The Ombudsman found that there was no error by EPSO regarding the complainant’s language choice, but that the matter was based on a misunderstanding. The Ombudsman thus closed the case with a finding of no maladministration, suggesting that EPSO reformulate the information on the basis of which the misunderstanding arose.

Decision in case 1035/2018/AP on how the European Parliament dealt with a request from a staff member with a disability to be allowed to work remotely

Thursday | 10 October 2019

The case concerned the European Parliament’s decision to reject the request from a staff member with a disability to be allowed to work remotely to accommodate her special needs. Parliament argued that the complainant does not need to work remotely to be able to carry out the essential tasks of her job.

Based on her inquiry, the Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration by Parliament.  

Decision in case 798/2018/JAP on the decision by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency to recover funds from a company that worked on a project under the Marco Polo programme

Wednesday | 09 October 2019

The case concerned the decision by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) to partially recover funds granted to a company that carried out a project to promote rail transport under the Marco Polo programme.

An investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) found irregularities with the project, in particular, concerning the costs of train drivers and other subcontracted services. OLAF recommended that INEA recover more than EUR 87 000 from the company.

The complainant challenged OLAF’s findings and provided INEA with additional explanations. However, INEA considered that these explanations did not call OLAF’s findings into question.

Based on her inquiry, the Ombudsman considered INEA’s decision to be reasonable. She therefore closed the case.

Decision in case 303/2019/NH on the European Commission’s assessment of academic qualifications when selecting trainees

Monday | 07 October 2019

The case concerned how the European Commission assesses academic qualifications when it selects its trainees. The Commission rejected the complainant’s application due to “inadequate academic qualifications” as he had obtained his bachelor’s degree in two years instead of three. The Commission explained that it rejected all applicants with less than three years of studies.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission admitted the complainant to the selection procedure for the traineeship programme. The Commission also changed its practice for assessing academic qualifications. It now accepts all applicants who have a three-year degree obtained in less than three years.

The Ombudsman closed the case as settled and welcomed the Commission’s decision to change its practice. She suggested to the Commission that it update its traineeship website to reflect better the new practice for assessing academic qualifications.