Showing 1 - 20 of 206 results
Decision in case 559/2016/MDC on the European Investment Bank’s refusal to initiate the conciliation procedure with regard to the complainant
Tuesday | 31 October 2017
The case concerned a former employee’s alleged unfair dismissal from and harassment at the European Investment Bank (EIB).
The Ombudsman’s inquiry focused on the issue that the EIB had allegedly wrongly denied the complainant the benefit of what is known as the ‘conciliation procedure’ provided for under Article 41 of the EIB’s Staff Regulations (which lays down that staff members may bring proceedings before the Court of Justice of the EU when a dispute arises with the EIB and that, prior to doing so, they should seek an amicable settlement, through the conciliation procedure). The Ombudsman made the preliminary finding that, by considering that the conciliation procedure could not be applied to a former member of staff who was not in receipt of an EIB pension, the EIB had committed maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore proposed that the EIB initiate the conciliation procedure without delay, as regards both the dismissal and the harassment issues. The Bank agreed to initiate the conciliation procedure as regards the dismissal issue, and referred the complainant to another procedure concerning the issue of harassment.
The Ombudsman concluded that, following her intervention, a solution had been found. She therefore closed the case.
Friday | 10 February 2017
Follow-up response from the Ombudsman to the President of the EIB concerning the Ombudsman's suggestions to promote proactive transparency
Friday | 27 January 2017
Further reply from the President of the EIB to the Ombudsman's letter on suggestions to promote proactive transparency
Wednesday | 21 December 2016
Proposal of the European Ombudsman for a solution in case 559/2016/MDC on the complainant’s alleged unfair dismissal from and harassment at the European Investment Bank
Saturday | 30 April 2016
The proper functioning of the European citizens' initiative (ECI) procedure and the Commission's role and responsibility in this regard.
Tuesday | 12 April 2016
Reply from the President of the EIB to the Ombudsman's letter on suggestions to promote proactive transparency
Tuesday | 22 March 2016
Follow‐up to the guidelines for further improvement issued to the European Commission when closing own-initiative inquiry OI/9/2013/TN into the functioning of the European citizens' initiative (ECI)
Tuesday | 08 March 2016
Monday | 22 February 2016
Thursday | 21 January 2016
Wednesday | 16 December 2015
Thursday | 03 December 2015
Reply from the European Commission to further remarks in the European Ombudsman's decision closing her own-initiative inquiry OI/8/2014/AN concerning the compliance with fundamental rights in the implementation of EU cohesion policy
Monday | 23 November 2015
Saturday | 21 November 2015
Transparency and public participation in relation to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ('TTIP') negotiations
Wednesday | 14 October 2015
Wednesday | 07 October 2015
Wednesday | 07 October 2015
Thursday | 20 August 2015
Decision in case 45/2015/PMC concerning the European Anti-Fraud Office's (OLAF) actions following the receipt of a whistleblowing report
Tuesday | 11 August 2015
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.
Reply from the European Commission to guidelines for further improvement in the European Ombudsman's Decision closing her own-initiative inquiry OI/9/2013/TN into the functioning of the European citizens' initiative (ECI)
Friday | 31 July 2015