Search inquiries

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.

The complaints were made by three persons representing a private university based in Switzerland. They concerned the Commission's decision rejecting the university's application sent in response to the Erasmus University Charters 2013 Call for Proposals. In their complaints, the complainants claimed that the Commission and/or the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) failed to (i) indicate the means of redress available as regards the decision, and (ii) notify the university in good time of the decision. The Ombudsman inquired into these matters and found no maladministration as regards the notification of the decision. However, the Ombudsman found that the university had not been properly informed about the means of redress. After having been invited to do so by the Ombudsman, the Commission, on its own behalf and on behalf of the EACEA, apologised to the complainants for this omission. The Ombudsman thus concluded that there were no grounds for further inquiries into that aspect of the complaints.

The case concerned the manner in which ENISA reassigned the tasks and carried out changes in the working environment of the complainant, an ENISA employee. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and made a proposal for a friendly solution, which ENISA did not accept. The Ombudsman then made draft recommendations, in which she asked ENISA: 1) to acknowledge that it failed (a) to consult the complainant before adopting the reassignment decisions, (b) to give reasons for its actions, (c) to properly communicate its reassignment decisions, (d) to reply to the complainant's relevant requests, and (e) to have proper regard for the complainant's welfare; 2) to offer the complainant an apology; 3) to make an ex gratia payment of EUR 1 000 to the complainant; and 4) to give the Ombudsman a formal undertaking that it will not commit such instances of maladministration in the future. ENISA accepted the Ombudsman's draft recommendations and took steps to implement them. Therefore, the Ombudsman closed the case.

The complaint concerns the European Commission's alleged failure to notify the complainant of its finding that he breached the Code of Conduct of the EU Election Observation Missions.

After having served as an EU Election Observer, the complainant was informed by third parties that the Commission had found him to have breached the Code of Conduct for such Observers. The complainant was concerned about the fact that this decision had not been communicated to him and that it would affect his chances of being selected for future EU Election Observation Missions.

The Ombudsman identified a number of problems in the procedure applied by the Commission. He was not fully convinced that the complainant's rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, had been respected. The Ombudsman therefore made a proposal for a friendly solution, suggesting measures that the Commission could take to put things right, as regards (i) the complainant's personal situation and (ii) the general procedure followed.

Concerning the complainant's personal situation, the Commission settled the case by providing assurances that the complainant remains a fully eligible candidate for future EU Election Observation Missions.

Concerning its general procedures for finding a breach of the Code of Conduct for EU Observers, the Commission's response indicated that it was already implementing the Ombudsman's suggestion to carry out a review. The Ombudsman welcomed the review and made certain suggestions in relation to it.

The complaint concerns a selection procedure for the recruitment of a Financial Assistant (Contract Agent) by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control ('ECDC'), in which the complainant participated.

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that ECDC failed to carry out the selection procedure in a fair and proper manner.

The Ombudsman identified a number of flaws in ECDC's procedure. First, the Selection Committee wrongly decided to take no account of a relevant written test. Second, the condition that candidates had to obtain a minimum score of 70% was never communicated to candidates. The Ombudsman also found that ECDC failed properly to inform candidates of the recruitment procedure's outcome. On the basis of his findings, the Ombudsman made a proposal for a friendly solution, suggesting steps which ECDC could take in order to put things right, with respect to both the recruitment procedure at hand and future such procedures.

The Ombudsman noted and applauded ECDC's overall positive approach to his friendly solution proposal. He therefore closed the case with a finding that no further inquiries were justified. He also made suggestions for further improvement.