The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s messages concerning its difficulties with the submission of a grant proposal. Due to technical problems, the complainant was not able to apply through the Commission’s system PRIAMOS. Instead, it submitted its proposal by e-mail, which remained unanswered.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and asked the Commission to reply. In its reply, the Commission apologised for not having replied earlier. It said that it could not accept the complainant’s e-mail application because the system had functioned properly and the Commission had not been able to identify any attempts by the complainant to send the proposal via PRIAMOS before the deadline.

The case concerned the alleged failure of the Office of the European Union Special Representative (EUSR office) in Kosovo to keep internship applicants informed of steps in a recruitment procedure. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue, setting out her view that "it is both courteous and service-minded to acknowledge receipt of applications and to inform candidates of the significant steps (such as their exclusion from a recruitment procedure) affecting their progress in a recruitment procedure." The EUSR office explained that it had very limited resources and therefore could inform only shortlisted persons of the outcome of the procedure. However, it stated that it was examining how to improve its communication with persons wishing to be interns, such as by informing all such persons of relevant steps in the procedure by putting relevant information on its website. The Ombudsman invited the EUSR office to report on the implementation of this solution.

This case concerned the EU Delegation to Armenia's alleged unlawful and/or unfair decision to terminate a grant contract related to a project implemented in Armenia and Jordan, to the detriment of the complainant, an Italian NGO active in the field of development cooperation. After a careful assessment of all the facts and arguments, the Ombudsman concluded that the Delegation's explanation for the termination decision was incomplete. The Ombudsman therefore suggested that the Commission, in its supervisory role over the EU Delegations, provide the complainant with a more comprehensive explanation as to the grounds for terminating the project.

In reply to the Ombudsman's proposal, the Commission declared that the Delegation had taken all the relevant factors into consideration when deciding to terminate the contract. However, it recognised that the explanation for terminating the grant might not have been sufficiently comprehensive. Therefore, it forwarded to the Ombudsman a letter which the Delegation had sent to the complainant explaining all the factors it took into account in its assessment.

Notwithstanding the fact that the complainant expressed its dissatisfaction with the Commission's reply to her proposal for a friendly solution, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission had taken steps to resolve the matter. She thus decided to close the case.

This inquiry arose in the context of the visit of the European Ombudsman to the European Institute for Gender Equality. The visit formed part of the Ombudsman's programme of visits to EU agencies aimed at spreading good practice among the agencies in their relations with citizens. As part of the visit, the Ombudsman examined (i) the Institute's initial contacts with the public, (ii) transparency, dialogue and accountability, (iii) recruitment, (iv) tenders and contracts, (v) conflicts of interest and (vi) whistleblowing. The Ombudsman made six suggestions to the Institute to improve its performance in these areas. EIGE's response confirmed that it was taking action by, among other things, making information about its work available in all EU official languages and adopting more detailed provisions in relation to whistleblowing.

As the Ombudsman's visit suggested that the Institute needed to do more to deal with, and indeed prevent, cases of harassment, she followed-up specifically on this issue and was encouraged by the determined action taken by the Institute in response. To promote further improvement, the Ombudsman has, among other things, suggested that EIGE regularly organise training in this area of central importance to the Institute's work.

In the framework of the programme of visits to EU agencies, the European Ombudsman visited Frontex on 4 October 2012. The Report on the visit made a number of suggestions covering the issues discussed during the visit. Those issues were: (i) Frontex regulations on personal conduct and good administrative behaviour; (ii) the public service principles; (iii) transparency, dialogue and accountability (public access to documents); (iv) selection and recruitment; (v) conflicts of interest; (vi) whistle-blowing; and (vii) tenders and contracts. After conducting further inquiries, the Ombudsman concluded that Frontex adopted a constructive approach and showed willingness to implement the majority of the Ombudsman's suggestions. While regretting that Frontex did not agree to proactive disclosure of the names of Selection Board members, the Ombudsman noted that this issue would be dealt with in an own-initiative inquiry addressed to all the agencies. The Ombudsman also made two further remarks.

First, he welcomed the fact that Frontex is currently revising the Decision of its Management Board, dated 21 September 2006, laying down practical arrangements regarding public access to documents. He reminded Frontex of the need to implement fully the provisions of Regulation 1049/2001 and in particular that its register should include a list of sensitive documents. He also requested that Frontex send the revised Decision to the Ombudsman by the end of March 2014. Second, the Ombudsman encouraged Frontex to help citizens who visit its website by providing a link from the homepage to the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

The Ombudsman’s programme of visits to EU Agencies is designed to ensure that they respect principles of good administration, such as transparency and high ethical standards. In the framework of this programme, the Ombudsman visited the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) on 14 June 2012. Following the visit, he sent a report to the ESRB, in which he made several suggestions.

In his report, the Ombudsman called on the ESRB to improve its procedures for tackling potential conflicts of interest concerning its staff. Furthermore, he suggested that the ESRB should become more transparent as regards its dissemination of information and handling of access to documents requests. The Ombudsman also suggested that, when recruiting its staff, the ESRB should provide information on remedies available to candidates in vacancy notices and letters rejecting applications. He finally called on the ESRB to request that the ECB consider rephrasing a statement in the recruitment section of its website, so as to render it more citizen-friendly.

On 25 June 2013, the ESRB sent its follow-up action plan. The Ombudsman concluded that the ESRB had taken appropriate steps to adopt most of his suggestions. As regards the remaining issues, he concluded that the ESRB had taken measures in the right direction to implement them. He thus concluded that no further inquiries were justified into the issues here under review and closed the case.

In the framework of his programme of visits to the EU agencies, the Ombudsman visited the Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) on 19 July 2012. Following the visit, he sent a Report to ENISA, in which he made the following suggestions: a) ENISA could make its commitment to the principles set out in the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour ('ECGAB') more visible to Union citizens by providing a link to the ECGAB on its website; b) ENISA could consider (i) creating a dedicated page on its website which would identify the rules applicable to requests for access to documents and the responsible contact person, (ii) producing an annual report on its handling of requests for public access to documents, and (iii) establishing a public register of its documents; c) ENISA could consider making available in all 23 Treaty languages at least the homepage of its website, as well as information on its functions and language policy; d) With a view to further improving the information provided to candidates in selection and recruitment procedures, ENISA could inform candidates of their rights to challenge an unfavourable decision; e) ENISA could reconsider its position regarding disclosure of the names of selection board members; f) ENISA could ensure that all its staff members are informed of the public service principles for EU civil servants and that it could consider making the public service principles available on its website; g) ENISA could adopt the concrete measures on conflict of interest issues set out in its Founding Regulation in order to comply with its legal obligations; h) ENISA could consider informing staff about the option provided by the Staff Regulations to report the possible existence of illegal activity internally first.

On 31 January 2013, ENISA sent its follow-up reply. In its reply, ENISA outlined the measures taken in order to implement the Ombudsman's suggestions.

The Ombudsman concluded that ENISA demonstrated a constructive approach and willingness to implement his suggestions following his visit to the Agency. In light of ENISA's positive reaction to his suggestions, the Ombudsman closed his inquiry.

The complainant is divorced from her ex-husband, who was employed as a temporary agent of the European Commission in Luxembourg. The complainant and her ex-husband have two children, of whom the complainant has custody. The Commission paid the complainant the household allowance, dependent child allowance, and education allowance in the name and on behalf of her ex-husband.

In 2008, the complainant's ex-husband informed the Commission that his ex-wife and his children no longer lived in Germany, but had moved to Bulgaria over a year earlier. This meant that the Commission had paid higher sums in family allowances than were due, since the allowances were subject to a geographical weighting based on the cost of living. The complainant informed the Commission that she was still resident in Germany, as were her children. However, the institution was not convinced that this was so and initiated a recovery procedure against her for the allegedly overpaid allowances.

The complainant turned to the European Ombudsman, who opened an inquiry. In the course of the inquiry, a Commission official inadvertently sent the ex-husband an e-mail containing appalling and vulgar language that was not only offensive to him but also to the complainant. The complainant submitted this issue to the Ombudsman and he decided that the evident insult to the complainant merited being included in his inquiry.

In the course of the Ombudsman's investigations, the Commission acknowledged that it had wrongly applied the rules concerning the recovery of allegedly overpaid family allowances as far as the complainant was concerned. However, even though the Commission had apologised to the complainant for the insulting e-mail, the Ombudsman considered that its reaction was, in both form and substance, not commensurate with the maladministration that had occurred. He therefore addressed a draft recommendation to the Commission. Moreover, the Ombudsman alluded to the possibility that the use of the unacceptable language in the e-mail concerned might well have been an indication of a wider problem within the Commission's services.

In its detailed opinion, the Commission presented a letter of apology sent to the complainant by the Director of the service concerned and offered to make a payment of EUR 500 in order to compensate the complainant for the moral damages she endured. Moreover, the Commission organised a series of internal training sessions to emphasise the importance of ethics and of a culture of service towards EU citizens. Even though the complainant chose not to accept the Commission's offer to compensate her for her moral damages, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had taken adequate steps of an individual as well as a general nature to implement his draft recommendation.

The complainant was the object of an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). OLAF disclosed details of the outcome of its investigation to a third party, which were published in a press article in the complainant's country. The European Data Protection Supervisor deemed the disclosure to be contrary to the EU data protection rules. Subsequently, the complainant requested that OLAF admit wrongdoing in disclosing the personal information and apologise for it.

OLAF initially refused to do so. However, following the Ombudsman's inquiry, it sent a letter to the complainant in which it expressed regret for not acting in accordance with data protection rules in his case and apologised to him. Although the complainant was not satisfied with the apology, the Ombudsman took the view that it met the complainant's claim and thus concluded that there were no grounds for him to conduct further inquiries into the complaint.