Showing 1 - 20 of 224 results
Decision in case 638/2020/VB on how the European Personnel Selection Office carried out a shooting test in a selection procedure for armed security and protection officers for the EU institutions
Friday | 17 July 2020
The complaint was that the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) had not ensured equal treatment of candidates in a shooting test in a selection procedure for recruiting armed security and protection officers for the EU institutions.
The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest that EPSO had failed to ensure equal treatment of candidates. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.
Alleged irregularities in the selection procedure for the European prosecutor from a participating EU member state
Tuesday | 07 July 2020
The European Commission’s alleged discrimination towards a candidate with disabilities who was successful in selection procedure EPSO/A/18/04 - Administrators (A7/A6)
Monday | 06 July 2020
Decision in case 2263/2019/VB on the European Personnel Selection Office’s alleged failure to accommodate the special needs of a person in a selection procedure for EU civil servants in the field of audit
Wednesday | 17 June 2020
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.
How the European Medicines Agency dealt with the authorisation of the medicine Kalydeco for use by children with a specific form of cystic fibrosis
Thursday | 04 June 2020
Decision in case 222/2020/EWM on how the European Medicines Agency dealt with the authorisation of the medicine Kalydeco for use by children with a specific form of cystic fibrosis
Wednesday | 03 June 2020
The case concerned how the European Medicines Agency (EMA) dealt with a request to authorise a medicine called Kalydeco. Kalydeco is used to treat cystic fibrosis, a serious illness caused by a number of different gene mutations.
The complainant, whose three-year old son has a specific form of cystic fibrosis, expressed concerns that EMA had incurred delays in approving the drug for use in children with this specific form of cystic fibrosis.
During the inquiry, on 20 April 2020, EMA informed the complainant and the Ombudsman that its scientific experts had, after examining all the scientific and medical evidence they needed, approved Kalydeco for use in children with the form of cystic fibrosis that affects the complainant’s child.
The Ombudsman found that no unjustified delays had occurred. EMA was also clear and transparent, and showed great care, in its contacts with the complainant.
The Ombudsman concluded that there was no maladministration by EMA and closed the inquiry.
European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency (GSA) and alleged failure to reclassify the complainant in the 2019 reclassification exercise
Tuesday | 19 May 2020
Decision of the European Parliament not to allow a member of the communication staff of a political group to formally hold the job title of ‘press officer’, ‘communication policy advisor’, or equivalent
Wednesday | 13 May 2020
Decision of the European Ombudsman in the case 568/2020/PB on the European Commission’s response to a complaint about police behaviour in relation to one incident of alleged hate speech/act in Denmark
Wednesday | 08 April 2020
Entscheidung der Europäischen Bürgerbeauftragten im obengenannten Fall über die angebliche fehlerhafte Antwort der Europäischen Kommission auf Ihre Vertragsverletzungsbeschwerde über Diskriminierung und Verfolgung in Deutschland
Friday | 03 April 2020
Monday | 23 March 2020
The European Personnel Selection Office’s reply to a request for review of the decision not to place the complainant on the list of successful candidates in a selection procedure for EU civil servants in the area of media and digital communication
Thursday | 19 March 2020
The Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) and the non-renewal of the complainant's contract as an evaluator of proposals for funding
Wednesday | 11 March 2020
Decision of the European Ombudsman in the case 1979/2019/PL on how the European Commission handled claims of discrimination in a project co-funded by the Cohesion Fund in Cyprus
Wednesday | 05 February 2020
The European External Action Service’s failure to reply to a complaint concerning differences in employment conditions between local staff and international staff within EUFOR
Wednesday | 05 February 2020
European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) alleged failure to accommodate the special needs of a person in a selection procedure for EU civil servants
Tuesday | 14 January 2020
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 of the European Ombudsman in the case 1896/2019/AMF on how the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency and the European Commission dealt with staff matters involving alleged harassment, administrative inquiries, as well as a disciplinary procedure resulting in a reprimand
Monday | 16 December 2019
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.
Decision in case 1315/2018/LM on how the European Commission handled a complaint about how the national agency of Cyprus manages the Erasmus+ Youth Programme
Wednesday | 20 November 2019
The complainant is the president of two organisations that run Erasmus+ youth programmes in Cyprus. He complained to the European Commission about the behaviour of the Cypriot national agency, in charge of implementing the Erasmus+ programme at national level. In his view, the Commission did not investigate his complaint properly and he therefore turned to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman found that the European Commission had handled the complaints reasonably and in line with its role under the Erasmus+ Regulation. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.