The complaint, which was submitted by the British Air Line Pilots' Association, relates to the EU rules on flight and duty time limitations and rest requirements for commercial airlines. More specifically, it concerns the manner in which EASA had conducted its process to update these rules. The complainant contended (i) that scientific advice should have had a more prominent role in the rulemaking process; (ii) that EASA had failed to provide evidence of the qualifications of the members of the rulemaking group; and (iii) that EASA did not deal adequately with conflict of interest issues.

The Ombudsman found no maladministration by EASA as regards the role of scientific advice in the rulemaking process. As regards the issue of how EASA manages possible conflicts of interest in the rulemaking groups, the Ombudsman found that its policy for mitigating such conflicts in the case of its own staff had been changed and that this revised approach is now being applied also to experts in the rulemaking groups. On this basis the Ombudsman concluded that she did not have to inquire further into that issue. Finally, EASA accepted the Ombudsman's recommendation to provide the complainant with anonymised information about the members of the rulemaking group. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case, encouraging EASA to adopt a more proactive approach to disclosing information available to it about the qualifications and expertise of members of the rulemaking group. She also flagged that she is considering looking into issues related to the work done by external experts for certain EU agencies.

The complainant made a request for public access to EASA's approval recommendation reports relating to foreign aircraft maintenance organisations in which non-compliance with certain personnel requirements was found. The EASA refused access on the basis of the need to protect its continued surveillance activity and the commercial interests of the organisations concerned. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman alleging that the EASA had wrongly refused access.

The case concerned OLAF's actions following the receipt of a whistleblowing report linking the European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) to the alleged manipulation of an aviation security inspection report. Following a preliminary assessment, the Ombudsman was concerned about what appeared to be OLAF's decision to dismiss the case and to refer the matter back to EASA despite the fact that the whistleblower had consciously chosen to make his report to OLAF rather than to EASA. The Ombudsman took the preliminary view that such a decision might impact negatively on the effectiveness of the whistleblowing provisions in general. She therefore decided to inquire into the matter.

Following an inspection of OLAF's files, the Ombudsman found that OLAF had appropriately considered whether to open an investigation. It also emerged that OLAF had not in fact closed the case but had asked EASA to examine the matter and to report back on the results of its investigation. Furthermore, OLAF had reserved the right to open a formal inquiry at a later stage. Against this background, the Ombudsman found that OLAF had dealt appropriately with the complainant's whistleblowing report. The Ombudsman noted that OLAF should have informed the complainant more explicitly that its referral of the matter to EASA did not mean that OLAF would not be taking any further action on the matter. She made a further remark in this regard.

The case concerned the European Commission's handling of an infringement complaint related to air passenger rights. The complainant's flight from London to Sofia was cancelled because of heavy snowfall and he was re-routed via Munich. However, his flight was late arriving in Munich and he missed his connecting flight. The complainant thus had to spend the night there, and was not offered a hotel room by his carrier. Following contacts with the authorities in the UK and Germany, he submitted an infringement complaint to the Commission, alleging that the UK authorities were acting contrary to the relevant EU rules on air passenger rights.

The Commission argued that the problems were caused by 'extraordinary circumstances' which meant that, in line with the relevant EU Regulation, the complainant was not entitled to cash compensation. It subsequently also discontinued correspondence with the complainant.

The Ombudsman accepted the Commission's position as regards the existence of 'extraordinary circumstances' related to the snowfall. Thus, the complainant did not have a right to cash compensation. However, the complainant did have a "right to care" and should have been provided with hotel accommodation by the carrier. Given the carrier's failure to provide hotel accommodation, the Ombudsman believed that there had been an infringement of the duty of care. For this reason, the Ombudsman found the Commission's view, that there had not been an infringement of the duty of care, to be unconvincing.

The Ombudsman recommended to the Commission that, in dealing with such infringement complaints in future, it should take proper account of the carrier's duty of care to air passengers. As regards its decision to discontinue correspondence with the complainant, the Ombudsman did not agree with the Commission's view that his correspondence was "improper" and made another recommendation to the Commission in this regard.

The Commission accepted in principle the Ombudsman's second recommendation. While the Commission did not reject the Ombudsman's first recommendation, it is clear from its response that it does not share the Ombudsman's view regarding the extent of a carrier's duty of care to a passenger. In closing her inquiry , the Ombudsman dealt with this by way of a critical remark. She also forwarded her decision to Parliament's relevant committees, and to national ombudsmen, for information.

The Air Passenger Rights Regulation provides that air passengers have the right to receive compensation where their flights are cancelled; an air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

This case concerned the publication by the Commission on its website of a list of extraordinary circumstances drawn up by the National Enforcement Bodies (NEB list).

The complainant, a firm of solicitors, turned to the European Ombudsman and alleged that the events referred to as 'extraordinary circumstances' on the NEB list are incompatible with the Passenger Rights Regulation and the relevant case-law. Because the publication of the NEB list on the Commission's website has given it more credibility, the complainant argued that NEBs, airlines, and national courts take the NEB list into account and consequently deny passengers compensation.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and concluded that the publication of the NEB list on the Commission's website would be problematic if the NEB list (i) were found to be misleading for consumers as to its true origin and nature or (ii) did not properly reflect the contents of the Passenger Rights Regulation. To this end, the Ombudsman made a proposal for a friendly solution which contained specific suggestions to the Commission.

In its reply, the Commission outlined the refinements it had made to the NEB list and provided further clarifications. Notwithstanding the complainant's dissatisfaction with the Commission's reply, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission's clarifications adequately address the two points identified in her proposal for a friendly solution. In light of these considerations, the Ombudsman found no maladministration on the Commission's part and closed the case.

The case concerned a failure of EASA to give stakeholders copies of minutes of a meeting of the EASA Advisory Group of National Authorities in which modifications to flight and duty time limitations, and rest requirements for commercial air transport, were discussed.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that EASA was wrong to withhold access to the minutes. She thus made a draft recommendation that the minutes be released. EASA agreed to release the minutes and committed to ensuring that similar minutes be released in future.

The Ombudsman thus found that EASA had accepted her draft recommendation and she closed the inquiry.