Showing 1 - 20 of 78 results
The European Commission’s alleged failure to initiate a temporary withdrawal procedure from the EU’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences against Bangladesh
Tuesday | 24 March 2020
The European Commission’s alleged failure to reply to a letter suggesting that the Commission should publish in national newspapers its recommendations on national budgets
Tuesday | 24 March 2020
Decision in cases 1056/2018/JN and 1369/2019/JN on the European Commission’s actions regarding the respect for fundamental labour rights in Bangladesh in the context of the EU’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences
Tuesday | 24 March 2020
The case concerned the actions taken by the European Commission regarding Bangladesh in the context of the EU’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences. The complainants considered that Bangladesh does not fully respect fundamental labour rights and that, therefore, the Commission should start the procedure allowing it to withdraw Bangladesh’s trade preferences under the scheme.
The Commission informed the Ombudsman of how it has engaged with Bangladesh on the issue so far and the actions it has taken. It said that it may decide to withdraw Bangladesh’s trade preferences as a measure of last resort.
The decision as to whether or not to launch a withdrawal procedure involves complex policy judgments. The Commission has a broad margin of discretion in determining when to do so. The Ombudsman took the view that the explanations the Commission had provided for its chosen course of action were reasonable. She closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.
European Asylum Support Office (EASO) accepts Ombudsman’s suggestions on how it reacts to problems concerning interviews with asylum seekers
Friday | 20 March 2020
Decision in case 1377/2019/PL on how the European Commission dealt with a transfer of pension rights from the national Greek system into the EU pension system
Monday | 17 February 2020
Ombudsman welcomes Commission's commitment to take greater account of environment and human rights in reviewing export credit agencies
Monday | 10 February 2020
Wednesday | 05 February 2020
EASO's follow-up reply to the European Ombudsman's suggestions for improvement in case 1139/2018/MDC
Monday | 03 February 2020
Decision in case 1052/2019/MMO on how the European Commission dealt with a complaint concerning the European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Thursday | 23 January 2020
The complainant had contacted the European Commission to raise concerns about what he saw as the failure of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) to comply with health and safety rules. The complainant argued that the Commission had a responsibility to monitor EMBL activities, as the Commission is an ‘observer’ on the council of the EMBL, which also receives EU funding. The Commission, for its part, said that it was not responsible for the activities of the EMBL.
In the context of her inquiry, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to provide a more comprehensive reply to the complainant. The Commission replied that organisations in receipt of EU funds must adhere to ethical principles and all national and international law, including health and safety regulations. The Commission invited the complainant to identify the grant agreement under which the EMBL received funding for the activities at issue and provide more information on the alleged breaches.
The Ombudsman found the Commission’s reply to be reasonable and closed the case.
Follow- up reply sent by the European Commission to the European Ombudsman concerning the case 212/2016/JN on the European Commission’s annual reviewing of Member States’ export credit agencies
Monday | 20 January 2020
Решение на Европейския омбудсман по горепосочената жалба относно отговор на Комисията по отношение на правата на малцинствена група в България
Tuesday | 14 January 2020
The European Commission’s failure to open infringement proceedings against Germany concerning the refusal of the recognition of a same-sex marriage and change of family name - CHAP(2018)01095
Monday | 13 January 2020
Decisione del Mediatore europeo nel caso di cui sopra su come il Servizio europeo per l’azione esterna (SEAE) ha gestito una denuncia contro la Svizzera riguardante la violazione delle norme sulla libera circolazione delle persone
Friday | 20 December 2019
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 concerning complaint 1988/2019/KR against the European Commission
Wednesday | 27 November 2019
The Commission’s alleged failure to acknowledge receipt of an infringement complaint concerning toxic fires in Giugliano, Italy, and in the surrounding municipalities
Thursday | 07 November 2019
Decision of the European Ombudsman in the above case on how the European Commission handled a complaint that Germany had breached EU law on the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the rules on child abduction
Wednesday | 16 October 2019
Decision of the European Ombudsman in the above cases about the European Personnel Selection Office not disclosing certain test scores in two EU staff selection procedures and its handling of correspondence related to a request for review of a decision
Wednesday | 02 October 2019
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 of the European Ombudsman in case 1578/2019/MOM on how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint concerning the United Kingdom’s compliance with the Free Movement Directive 2004/38/EC
Monday | 23 September 2019