The case concerned the European Commission’s failure to reply to correspondence sent in the context of an infringement complaint against Italy and its alleged wrongful decision to close the infringement complaint.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issues and found that, through the reply which the Commission sent to the complainant in the course of this inquiry, it had provided a cogent and comprehensive reply. The Commission had therefore settled the first issue. In particular, the Ombudsman found that the Commission had given a sufficient explanation for its decision not to re-open infringement proceedings in this case. Therefore, with regard to the second issue, she considered that there was no maladministration.

The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry.

The case concerned the termination of a service contract by the European Commission. The complainant claimed that the Commission had not replied to his letters, that it had terminated the service contract without good reason and that it had been slow to pay the invoices sent to it. He also sought compensation for late payments and damages.

The Ombudsman investigated these allegations. With respect to the first, it concluded that, since the Commission eventually responded to the complainant's letters, the matter had been resolved. As regards the second allegation, which concerns the alleged termination of the contract without good cause, the Ombudsman concluded that there had been no maladministration on the part of the Commission, since the contract gave the Commission the right to terminate it at any time and that, in any event, the Commission had indeed provided a good reason for termination. As regards the third allegation, the Ombudsman concluded that a solution had been found to the problem of late payment of invoices, since the Commission finally paid the complainant the sums due for the work carried out and agreed to pay default interest. Finally, as regards the claim for compensation, the Ombudsman concluded that there was no need for any further inquiry into the matter, since the Commission paid the complainant compensation for the damage suffered and the contract did not provide for any compensation for any other type of damage.

The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s correspondence in the context of a financial audit at the Member State level. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the Commission replied. It disclosed the document requested by the complainant but redacted some personal data (names of physical persons). The Ombudsman found that the Commission correctly justified the redaction under Regulation 45/2001.

The case concerned the European Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s correspondence in which the complainant pointed to an allegedly inaccurate statement by Commissioner Bienkowska regarding firearms. The Commission replied in the course of the inquiry and acknowledged the inaccuracy. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry as the Commission has taken steps to settle the case. However, the Ombudsman suggested to the Commission to consider publishing a correction in order to ensure that the public is accurately informed.

The case concerned the adequacy of EPSO’s responses to the complainant’s concerns that he may have missed recruitment opportunities due to a technical issue with his EPSO account. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that EPSO’s reply provided in the course of the inquiry adequately addressed the complainant’s concerns. EPSO addressed the technical issue and provided assurances that the complainant had not missed any opportunities.

The case concerned the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to allow the complainant to submit a second application in the context of a call for expressions of interest which contained no specific deadline for the submission of applications. The complainant sought to submit a second application after failing to pass the test linked to his initial application under the same selection procedure. The complainant argued that EPSO failed to provide adequate replies to his letters concerning (i) the legal basis for not allowing candidates to reapply in selection procedures without any specific closing dates; and (ii) the conditions, including the behaviour of staff, at the test centre in Spain.

In its response, EPSO referred to the conditions set out in the call for expressions of interest as the legal basis for its actions. It also explained that it had investigated the matter concerning the behaviour of the staff at the test centre.

The Ombudsman found EPSO’s explanation to be reasonable and adequate, so the case was closed.

The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s letter concerning alleged illegalities committed by national courts in Estonia. In that letter, the complainant also criticised the Commission for not taking any action. The Commission explained that it has no competence to intervene in the matter. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission’s explanations were correct, helpful and in line with its statutory powers. The case was thus closed as settled.

The complainant wrote several times to EPSO asking it to delete his EPSO account. EPSO replied that it could not delete his account since two selection procedures he participated in were still open. After the complainant contacted EPSO two more times without receiving a reply, he turned to the Ombudsman alleging that EPSO had failed to reply and claiming that EPSO should delete his account.

Following the Ombudsman’s inquiry, EPSO replied to the complainant. The Ombudsman thus concluded that EPSO had settled the complainant’s allegation. In its reply, EPSO also informed the complainant that the data retention period for the two selection procedures he participated in had not yet expired and that, therefore, it could not yet delete his EPSO account. The Ombudsman found no maladministration in this respect and thus closed the case.  

The case concerned EPSO’s actions following a computer-server crash during a test and EPSO's handling of the complainant's requests for review and for access to documents.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that EPSO (i) did not deal properly with the situation arising from the computer crash, (ii) failed to deal properly with the complainant's request for review and (iii) failed to handle properly the complainant's request for access to documents. Therefore, the Ombudsman made three recommendations to EPSO.

EPSO accepted the Ombudsman's first recommendation regarding how it should deal with technical problems during a computer-based test. The second recommendation was that EPSO should provide the complainant with a detailed explanation of how it had dealt with his request for a review. The Ombudsman did not find EPSO's response on this to be convincing and that EPSO’s handling of the request for a review constituted maladministration. Finally, EPSO did not accept the Ombudsman's third recommendation regarding the provision of access to documents. The Ombudsman found that EPSO’s failure to provide further documents also constituted maladministration. In addition to two findings of maladministration, the Ombudsman also made a suggestion to EPSO on how it could improve its contact service for candidates.  

The case concerned the Commission's visual identity logo, used in its Brussels press conference room since 2012. In the complainant's view, the exclusive use of English and French in that visual identity logo constitutes discrimination on the basis of language.

The present language regime of the EU includes the right of each citizen to communicate with the EU's institutions in his or her own language and the corresponding right to receive a reply in that language. The principles governing this language regime apply also to other forms of communication, such as communication through publications and websites. Any differentiation in the use of languages in such circumstances should be objectively justified. As to whether there is an objective justification in the present case, the Ombudsman agrees that it is technically not possible to present the term "European Commission" in 24 languages on a television screen, either below, alongside or behind a speaker.

As to whether the Commission could have chosen more than two languages, the Ombudsman finds that it was reasonable for the Commission to have chosen just two languages. The choice of the number of languages to use comes down to a judgement call as to whether more than two languages would clutter the visual image in an unacceptable way. The fact that other combinations of languages may also be reasonable choices does not imply that the choice of English and French was not reasonable.

The Ombudsman considers that the policy chosen by the Commission was objectively justified. She thus concluded that the Commission's introduction of a new visual identity logo in its Brussels press conference room did not constitute maladministration.