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 deal properly with requests for information [Article 22 ECGAB]

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Showing 1 - 20 of 594 results

Decision in case 736/2019/PB on how the European External Action Service (EEAS) calculated work-experience in a recruitment procedure for an EU mission

Monday | 13 July 2020

The case concerned an individual who applied for a job with the European External Action Service (EEAS), specifically at a mission in a third country. The EEAS concluded that the complainant did not have the required number of years of work experience, and therefore rejected the application. The complainant felt that the EEAS had communicated poorly about this matter, and therefore turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman found that there had not been maladministration in how the  EEAS dealt with the complainant. She therefore closed the inquiry. However, she made certain suggestions to improve the EEAS administration in this area.

Decision of the European Ombudsman in case 1069/2019/MIG on sponsorship of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union

Monday | 29 June 2020

This case concerned corporate sponsorship of the Presidency of the Council of the EU. The complainant considered that the Council should regulate or prohibit such sponsorship. The Council refused to address the matter, arguing that the sponsorship of the Presidency was the sole responsibility of the Member State government holding the Presidency.

The Ombudsman noted that, as the Presidency is part of the Council, its activities are likely to be perceived by the wider European public as being linked to the Council and the EU as a whole. As such, the use of sponsorship by the Presidency entails reputational risks which the Council should address. The Ombudsman therefore recommended that, to mitigate those risks, the Council should provide guidance to the Member States on the issue of sponsorship of the Presidency.

The Council accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendation, announcing its intention to consider issuing best practice guidance to the Member States. The Ombudsman welcomed the Council’s decision and closed the inquiry.

Decision in case 2265/2019/EWM on the European Commission’s alleged failure to take a decision as regards an infringement complaint against Germany regarding a violation of EU environmental rules and failure to reply to requests for information on the matter

Friday | 19 June 2020

The case concerned how the Commission handled a complaint about Germany’s possible infringement of the EU’s Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. The complaint has been pending before the Commission for two and a half years and the Commission has currently regular contacts with the German authorities. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that there was no maladministration in the Commission’s conduct.

Decision in case 1491/2018/VB on the alleged failure by the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking to protect the complainant’s patent rights in the context of a project financed under the Horizon 2020 programme

Wednesday | 13 May 2020

The case concerned a project organised by the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CS2JU) and funded under the EU Research and Innovation programme ‘Horizon 2020’. The complainant claimed that a device developed in the context of the project breached his intellectual property rights.

The Ombudsman finds that the CS2JU has dealt with the complainant’s concerns in a reasonable manner and that it provided him with the appropriate advice to contact the competent national authorities.

The Ombudsman closes the inquiry with the finding that CS2JU’s handling of the complainant’s concerns about the alleged infringement of his intellectual property rights does not reveal maladministration and that no further inquiries into the other aspects of the complaint are justified.