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 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.

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.

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.

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.

The case concerned the way in which the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) conducted two staff recruitment procedures.

The Ombudsman found that, by not applying all the assessment criteria when assessing the applications, Cedefop had committed maladministration in one of the procedures. In light of the Court of Auditor’s recent call for immediate corrective action by Cedefop regarding its staff recruitment procedures and the fact that Cedefop’s management now seems intent on addressing the issues in question, the Ombudsman does not find it necessary to make a recommendation to Cedefop arising from her finding of maladministration.  

The Ombudsman, however, asked Cedefop to inform her within three months of this decision of all the measures it has recently taken, or plans to take, to improve its recruitment procedures. To promote public trust in its recruitment procedures, Cedefop should publish these measures on its website.

The complainant was dissatisfied with how the European Medicines Agency (EMA) had dealt with his request for reimbursement of travel expenses for attending a job interview. He argued that EMA’s reimbursement policy was unfair to candidates living outside the EU.

The Ombudsman noted that EMA is entitled to limit the reimbursement of travels costs and that it has a margin of discretion in deciding how exactly to do this. The Ombudsman found EMA’s rules to be reasonable and, on this basis, found no maladministration. She nevertheless welcomed the fact that EMA has since changed its rules for reimbursing travel from outside the EU, as the new policy has an even more rational calculation method.