After the Ombudsman's attention had been drawn to certain alleged serious irregularities affecting the EU Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) in Kosovo by an EULEX Prosecutor as well as by the media, the Ombudsman decided to open an own-initiative inquiry in order to assess whether the European External Action Service (EEAS) and EULEX had properly investigated or are properly investigating these allegations.

In order to ascertain what action needed to be taken by her, the Ombudsman inspected the EEAS's/EULEX's file concerning the matter. The inspection showed that EULEX had conducted a preliminary internal investigation and had recruited an external prosecutor to investigate the irregularities. In addition, the EEAS had appointed an experienced expert to review EULEX's mandate from a systemic point of view, with a particular focus on the allegations raised.

The Ombudsman noted that EULEX did not follow its standard procedure for investigating such allegations. She also found that the way in which the external prosecutor was recruited needed to be examined. However, given that the expert recently appointed by the EU High Representative has made it clear that these issues will form part of the review to be carried out by him, the Ombudsman took the view that there was no need for further action on her part at present.

The case concerned the complainant's exclusion by the European Parliament from a selection procedure for research administrators.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and inspected the file held by Parliament.

On the basis of the information obtained during the inspection, the Ombudsman did not find maladministration by Parliament.

The case concerns whether the European Commission should have carried out a human rights impact assessment in the context of its negotiations to conclude a free trade agreement with Vietnam. The complainants believed that such an assessment was necessary, whereas the Commission’s position was that it was not necessary since a sustainability impact assessment had already been carried out in 2009 on a proposed EU/ASEAN free trade agreement, which included Vietnam.

The Ombudsman's conclusion was that the Commission's failure to carry out a specific human rights impact assessment, in relation to Vietnam, constituted maladministration. In March 2015 she recommended that the Commission should carry out such an assessment without further delay.

The Commission refused. It argued that its "non-trade policy instruments" and the human rights clauses in the partnership and cooperation agreement achieved that same purpose.

The Ombudsman did not agree and in doing so underlined the features inherent in the human rights impact assessment tool. As the Agreement has been concluded in the meantime, the Ombudsman closed the case with a critical remark.

The case concerned the Commission's decision to declare ineligible certain costs declared by a partner to an EU funded project. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission's grounds for not accepting the costs in question were reasonable. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

The complaint concerns the reappointment of the Chairman of the Commission's Ad hoc Ethical Committee. This Committee comprises three individuals not currently employed by the Commission. Its role is to advise the Commission on ethical issues arising in the implementation of the Commission's Code of Conduct for Commissioners. In particular, the Committee advises on ethical issues when a former Commissioner wishes to take up employment.

The Ombudsman noted that the Chairman was in a conflict of interests given that he also worked as a lawyer representing the interests of private sector clients before the Commission. She found that the Commission's reappointment of the Chairman created a situation where the Chairman would, in effect, be adjudicating on the future employment prospects of Commissioners who, on the basis of their current positions, had huge influence on matters of great consequence for the private clients of the Chairman.

Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the private interests of the Chairman were such that they could impact negatively on the manner in which he exercised his role as Chairman of the Committee.

It was unnecessary for the Ombudsman to make any recommendation to the Commission as the Commission replaced the Chairman prior to the completion of the Ombudsman's inquiry.

The complainant in this case, a Luxembourgish citizen, was excluded from competing for a post in France on the grounds that she is not a French national. The post in question was that of a non-presiding judge who was to represent the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at the French asylum Court. The complainant put it to the European Commission that the limiting of the post to French nationals appeared to be a breach of the provisions of EU law on the free movement of workers. When the Commission took the view that there was no infringement of EU law, the complainant contacted the Ombudsman.

The Commission took the view that an exception to the right of free movement of workers applied. This exception applies in the case of employment in the public service and is provided for in Article 45(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Commission acknowledged that a decision in this issue required a concrete assessment of the nature of the tasks and responsibilities of the non-presiding judge and it argued that it had made such an assessment. The Ombudsman noted that, as part of this assessment, the Commission had not contacted the French authorities in order to obtain further information about the post in question. The Ombudsman's initial proposal, therefore, was that the Commission should review its assessment of the infringement complaint and she suggested that the Commission should consult the French authorities. In replying to this proposal, the Commission maintained that it had sufficient information available to it when deciding the issue and that it was therefore unnecessary to contact the French authorities. Having considered its detailed reply to the proposal, the Ombudsman accepted that in this case the Commission did have sufficient information on which to base its decision. She therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration on the part of the Commission.

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 an infringement complaint submitted to the European Commission in relation to the alleged failure of Germany to implement properly certain provisions of the ePrivacy directive. The complainant turned to the European Ombudsman alleging that the Commission had failed to explain properly the reasons for not commencing an investigation. The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found that the Commission subsequently provided an adequate explanation in relation to some of the issues raised by the complainant. As regards the issues in relation to which the Commission did not provide an adequate explanation, the Ombudsman closed the case with a critical remark.

The case concerned the European Commission's alleged failure to inform the complainant about the priority status of his State aid complaint.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue. In the course of her inquiry, the Commission informed the complainant that his complaint was not treated as a priority case. However, the Commission did not explain the reasons for its decision. The Ombudsman therefore closed the complaint with a critical remark concerning the Commission's failure to inform the complainant about why it had given a low priority status to his state aid complaint.

The complainant is a temporary agent with the European Parliament. She fell ill while on annual leave. The case concerned Parliament's refusal to convert the complainant's annual leave into sick leave. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found no maladministration as the complainant was required to provide a current address at the time, or soon after, she submitted her medical certificate for the sick leave. That requirement was not met.

The case concerned the evaluation of the complainant's proposal for a tender. In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant argued that the evaluation board wrongly evaluated its proposal as it failed to take into account the information provided therein.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the complainant did not show that the evaluators had made a manifest error of assessment as regards the aspects complained about. She therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.