You have a complaint against an EU institution or body?

Search cases

Text search

Document type

Institution concerned

Type of settlement

Case number


Date range


Failure to respect other rights and duties resulting from the Charter of Fundamental rights and not covered by the above list

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Showing 1 - 20 of 68 results

Decision in case 1933/2018/KR on the European Commission’s action relating to the drawing up of the EU list of ‘Projects of Common Interest’ in the energy sector

Thursday | 28 November 2019

The case concerned the inclusion of a project on the EU’s third list of Projects of Common Interest (‘PCIs’). PCIs are infrastructure project proposals that the Commission considers will improve and integrate energy markets in the EU.

The complainant, a member of an NGO called ‘Safety Before LNG’, is concerned about the inclusion of a project on the PCI-list, namely the ‘Shannon Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal and connecting pipeline project’. He is of the view that this project should have been the subject of a strategic environmental assessment (SEA), before it was included on the third PCI-list.

The Commission pointed out that it is the responsibility of the Member States in which projects are carried out to ensure that the project meets all EU and national environmental rules. The Ombudsman noted, in this regard, that the Member State authorities in Ireland, including the courts, are carefully examining the compliance of the proposed gas terminal with EU law. The Ombudsman further accepted the Commission’s argument that it has no power to carry out an SEA. The Ombudsman thus found the Commission’s explanation on the matter to be convincing.

The Ombudsman takes note, however, of the complainant’s point about heightened awareness of the negative impact of certain fossil fuels on the climate. Given that the list of PCIs is intended to help the EU achieve its energy policy and climate objectives in accordance with the Paris Climate Agreement, she trusts that the Commission too will continue to pay particular attention to this issue of major importance to citizens.

Decision of the European Ombudsman in case 1139/2018/MDC on the conduct of experts in interviews with asylum seekers organised by the European Asylum Support Office

Monday | 30 September 2019

The complainant alleged misconduct by experts in interviews with asylum seekers organised by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in Greece.

The Ombudsman found that EASO’s failure to address adequately and in a timely way the serious errors it had uncovered in a particular case before the asylum seeker in question was deported constituted maladministration. Since, regrettably, the maladministration cannot be remedied at this stage, the Ombudsman did not proceed to a recommendation. To avoid similar problems in the future, however, the Ombudsman suggested that EASO seek to inform the national authorities, immediately and systematically, if it discovers that significant errors have been made during interviews with asylum seekers.

The Ombudsman welcomed EASO’s statement that it is working to set up a complaints mechanism, and suggested that it do so as a matter of priority. Finally, the Ombudsman asked EASO to explain how it overcomes the challenges identified in this case in relation to the work and supervision of interpreters.

Decision in cases 1512/2018/JN and 1533/2018/JN on the Research Executive Agency’s decision to recover funds in the context of an EU-funded project

Thursday | 11 April 2019

The cases concerned how the Research Executive Agency (‘REA’) assessed a project focusing on the development of a technology. The complainant was concerned that the REA’s conduct and assessment had been unfair.

The Ombudsman examined the evidence provided by the complainant and found that the REA had taken adequate actions to settle the issues raised by the complainant. The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry.

Decision in case 758/2017/MDC on Frontex’s allegedly discriminatory language policy

Tuesday | 02 April 2019

The case concerned an Italian citizen’s request to obtain an Italian language version of a document from the European Border and Coastguard Agency (Frontex).

The Ombudsman’s inquiry focused on Frontex’s language policy in its external communications. The Ombudsman recommended that Frontex make general information about the Agency available on its website in all the EU languages. She also recommended that Frontex publish its language policy on its website in all the EU official languages.

As Frontex accepted her recommendations, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry, suggesting that Frontex develop a more comprehensive language policy for its external communications as soon as possible.

Decision in case 212/2016/JN on the European Commission’s annual reviewing of Member States’ export credit agencies

Monday | 03 December 2018

The case concerned the adequacy of the European Commission’s annual reviewing of export credit agencies — national bodies that give financial support to companies doing business in risky markets — in particular with respect to the protection of human rights and the environment.

The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found that the Commission’s methodology and procedures could be improved. In particular, the Ombudsman recommended that the Commission should engage in a dialogue with Member States and other stakeholders with a view to improving the template used by Member States to compile the reports on export credit agencies which they are required to submit to the Commission each year. The Ombudsman also recommended that the Commission, for its part, should enhance the analysis and evaluation content of the annual reviews of export credit agencies which it submits to the European Parliament.

The Commission informed the Ombudsman that it would consult the Council, Parliament and the European External Action Service, and engage with civil society, in order to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations. In particular, the Commission will propose to the Council Working Group on Export Credits a revised checklist template to be used by Member States for their annual reports. The Commission will also consider drawing up relevant guidance for Member States’ reporting.

As the measures announced by the Commission adequately address the Ombudsman’s recommendations, the Ombudsman closed her inquiry but asked the Commission to report back within one year.