The complainant, a French non-profit scientific organisation, successfully carried out three Commission-sponsored projects in the former Soviet Union. However, an external audit subsequently conducted at the complainant's premises revealed that the arrangement made between the complainant and a company in Moscow concerning the payment of staff was against the applicable rules. The complainant acknowledged its mistake, which it explained was the result of its limited understanding of legal matters. It argued however that it had always kept the Commission's project officer, who had attended a number of events organised in connection with the projects, informed of its practices. The project officer was therefore aware that the complainant had no employees of its own (since its staff members were all volunteers) and that without the arrangement involving the company in Moscow it would have been impossible for it successfully to complete the projects.

The Ombudsman first made a proposal for a friendly solution and later a draft recommendation, urging the Commission to waive its claim for reimbursement. The Commission refused to do so. The Ombudsman then emphasised that, when faced with project officers' silence vis-à-vis their actions concerning the projects they execute, organisations such as the complainant may reasonably be led to believe that they are acting in accordance with the applicable rules. When this is not the case, and once project officers are made aware of such actions, they should take preventive action and when they fail to do so, it should be possible to subject them to disciplinary measures. Since the foregoing raised an important issue of principle, the Ombudsman considered that a special report to the European Parliament could be justified. However, he decided not to address such a report to Parliament before a specific own-initiative inquiry is conducted into certain aspects of the Commission's behaviour when dealing with projects it finances. He therefore informed the Commission that he would consider launching such an own-initiative inquiry and closed the case with a finding of maladministration on the part of the Commission for its disproportionate and unfair recovery of certain sums from the complainant.

The complainant is a Canadian student, who took part in a master's course in Aeronautics and Space Technology in Munich and Madrid (EuMAS 2006-2008). The Commission offered an Erasmus Mundus scholarship of EUR 21 000 to third-country students for a number of master's courses, including the EuMAS 2006-2008. The Commission's website stated that the scholarship was to cover "travel and living expenses and tuition in Europe for the full duration of the course".

The complainant turned to the Commission, pointing out that he, and his fellow students – a group of fewer than 30 students from outside the EU, experienced serious financial difficulties in making ends meet. He argued that, after the tuition fees of EUR 12 000 and travel expenses had been deducted, the remaining amount was not enough to cover basic living expenses in Munich or Madrid. The complainant therefore asked the Commission to grant him, and the other EuMAS 2006-2008 students, financial assistance. The Commission acknowledged that, in light of the issues underlined in the present case, it would have to reconsider its approach in the future. It was not, however, prepared to grant the financial assistance requested. The complainant therefore turned to the Ombudsman.

Following a thorough inquiry, the Ombudsman concluded that: (i) the information provided by the Commission regarding the Erasmus Mundus programme indeed led EuMAS 2006-2008 students from outside the EU to believe that their scholarship would enable them to enjoy a decent standard of living by European standards; and (ii) the amount available was not sufficient for that purpose. In the Ombudsman's view, the information published by the Commission did not provide the EuMAS 2006-2008 students with correct and reliable information. The Commission therefore committed an instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman first submitted a proposal for a friendly solution and then addressed a draft recommendation to the Commission. In the latter, he recommended that the Commission make an ex-gratia payment of EUR 1 500 to each of the students concerned for the inconvenience they had experienced.

The Commission rejected the draft recommendation. The Ombudsman did not find convincing the arguments on which the Commission relied to justify its refusal. He therefore closed the case with a critical remark.

The complainant participated in a call for tender for translation services organised by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the 'Court'). His bid was excluded from the tender procedure because the price he offered was considered excessive.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Court had wrongly excluded his bid. Given that the award criterion was "best value for money", he questioned how his bid could be rejected on the grounds that the price was "excessive".

The Court explained that the tender procedure was a "negotiated procedure". It argued that the possibility to negotiate would be without substance if it were obliged to accept a bid offering an excessive price despite having asked the tenderer to negotiate. It noted that all tenderers were invited to negotiate their prices and they were all informed that the bids still offering an excessive price would be rejected. The complainant decided not to reduce his price.

The Ombudsman found that, in all tender procedures, it is good administration to make efforts to ensure that bids offering the best value for money are obtained. He also considered that maximum budgets can be set in relation to the procurement of products and services. Moreover, tenderers in a negotiated procedure do not have a legitimate expectation to be awarded a contract without having to adapt a submitted bid. The Ombudsman also found that, according to the contract notice, the Court was permitted to evaluate bids having regard to the criteria stated in the invitation to negotiate. The criterion in the invitation to negotiate outlined that the prices quoted should not be excessive.

The Ombudsman concluded that the tender procedure in question respected the principles of sound financial management, equal treatment, and fairness.

In light of the above, the Ombudsman concluded that the Court did not commit an instance of maladministration.

With a view to improving further the Court's tender procedures, the Ombudsman made a further remark suggesting that the Court could consider providing more information to tenderers about the type of tender procedure it has chosen to use.

The Italian authorities fined the complainant, a Lithuanian national, and seized his vehicles on the ground that he did not possess the necessary European Union licence for the carriage of goods by road. The complainant lodged an infringement complaint with the Commission. The Commission informed the complainant that its services would not investigate the complaint any further.

The complainant turned to the Ombudsman, who opened an inquiry into the complainant's allegation that the Commission failed to examine his infringement complaint with diligence. In its opinion, the Commission stated that the complainant's complaint was not dealt with as an infringement complaint because the action taken by the Italian authorities did not constitute an incorrect application of EU law. In his observations, the complainant maintained that he was not required to carry the licence in question, and he argued that the Commission did not carry out a careful investigation of his specific situation, despite his having provided it with all the necessary documents and receipts.

In his decision, the Ombudsman found that the Commission failed to handle the complainant's infringement complaint with due diligence and in accordance with the procedure for the registration and handling of infringement complaints provided for in the 2002 Communication. More specifically, he found that the 2002 Communication does not provide a basis for the Commission's decision not to handle the complainant's correspondence as an infringement complaint, and not to invite the complainant to submit his comments on its intention to close the file. This constitutes maladministration. Moreover, the Commission failed diligently to examine the infringement complaint because it did not analyse the documents provided; nor did it assess their legal significance. If the documentation presented to it proves to be insufficient for establishing whether an infringement occurred, the Commission should indicate to the complainant what might constitute additional relevant facts or evidence. By not carrying out such an analysis, the Commission committed maladministration, and the Ombudsman, therefore, issued a critical remark.

The Ombudsman made a further remark in which he invited the Commission to inform him of any additional steps, such as guidelines, it intends to implement in order to ensure that complaints which point to measures or practices contrary to European Union law, in accordance with the 2002 Communication, that are registered as such and are handled with the required diligence.

When paying the complainant, an auxiliary agent, the Commission committed a number of mistakes: first, it retained amounts the complainant was entitled to; later, it paid allowances the complainant was not entitled to; and finally, it again paid the complainant an amount it should not have paid.

The Commission recovered part of the overall amount overpaid to the complainant. However, in a complaint to the Ombudsman, the latter contested the recovery of the remaining part of that amount. She supported her case by highlighting the Commission's numerous mistakes and her difficult financial situation at that time.

The Ombudsman noted that the Commission was legally entitled to recover the amount from the complainant. However, in a proposal for a friendly solution, the Ombudsman invited the Commission to take responsibility for its repeated administrative mistakes by waiving the recovery.

The Commission demonstrated that it was ready to co-operate with the Ombudsman in seeking a favourable outcome to the complaint and cancelled its claim for reimbursement. In his decision, the Ombudsman welcomed the Commission's approach and closed the case.

The complainant applied for a vacancy as a secretary under a temporary contract scheme at the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). She was invited to a medical examination, an interview and a practical test. After passing all of these stages, the EESC informed her that she had been selected for the post. Two weeks before she was due to start work, however, the EESC informed her that she could not be recruited. This was because she had not completed three years of post-secondary studies, which was a minimum requirement for the post. At this point in time, the complainant had already resigned from her job in Finland, rented an apartment in Brussels and rented out her apartment in Finland. The complainant contacted the EESC and emphasised that she had provided all the information concerning her education, including the date foreseen for her graduation, in her application letter and CV.

The Ombudsman's inquiry concerned: (i) the EESC's allegedly belated decision not to proceed with the complainant's recruitment because she did not meet the minimum educational requirements for the post; and (ii) her claim for damages. Following a preliminary finding of maladministration, the Ombudsman made a friendly solution proposal to the EESC. He considered that, in spite of the fact that the complainant had clearly indicated the date of her graduation in her job application, the EESC wrongly assumed that she met the eligibility criteria and invited her for an interview and tests. In sum, the EESC failed adequately to review her application and CV. Furthermore, it wrongly informed the complainant that she had been selected for the post before its Appointing Authority had made a formal decision concerning her recruitment. The above actions of the EESC were potential instances of maladministration.

Following the Ombudsman's friendly solution proposal, the EESC agreed to pay the complainant EUR 3 965 as a financial settlement for the material expenses she suffered as a result of its actions.