Search inquiries

The case concerned a decision by the European Commission to deem ineligible certain costs claimed by a non-governmental organisation, which participated in an EU-funded project aimed at combatting racism against Roma people. The complainant argued that the Commission had not properly examined the evidence before determining that the costs were ineligible.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that there was no maladministration by the Commission.

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to recover sums paid out as grants under various EU-funded projects. The decision was taken following audits carried out by an auditor on behalf of the Commission. The complainant disagreed with the audit findings. Amongst other things, the complainant wanted the audits to be reviewed by the national chamber of auditors in its Member State. The Commission did not consider this necessary.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that there was no maladministration by the Commission.

This own-initiative inquiry is based on a complaint made by an association of Armenian NGOs called the Citizens' Protection League (CPL). It concerns the decision of the European Union Delegation to Armenia not to conclude a Grant Contract with CPL following the Delegation’s discovery of an error in its initial assessment of the CPL application. CPL argued that the Delegation’s decision was not based on sound reasons.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the European Commission acknowledged that the action taken initially by the Delegation, once it realised that an error had occurred in the evaluation process, was not appropriate. However, the Commission also showed that the error detected required that the evaluation of CPL’s application be redone and, thus, that the Delegation was not in a position to conclude the Grant Contract with CPL.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the failure by the European Commission to reply to the complainant’s request for a legal review of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency’s decision to reject his project from EU funding under the Erasmus+ programme. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission had already replied to the complainant. She therefore considered this part of the complaint as settled by the institution. She also examined the substance of the Commission’s reply and found it comprehensive and reasonable. She therefore decided that there was no maladministration.

The case was brought by an association of legal experts from all over the European Union which carried out a project co-financed by the European Commission. It concerned the alleged unfair recovery, following an audit, of sums wrongly considered ineligible under the Grant Agreement.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and concluded that, following her intervention, a solution had been found. She therefore closed the case.

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 evaluation by the European Court of Justice of two tenders for legal translation services. The complainant, an unsuccessful tenderer, alleged that the tender procedure did not meet the standards of good administration because (i) the evaluation of the tenders was not properly documented, (ii) there was no opportunity to ask for an internal administrative review and (iii) it did not guarantee anonymity.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found no maladministration by the Court. The Ombudsman, however, made three suggestions for improvement to the Court, namely that it (i) require internal evaluators to sign and date the evaluation sheets of tests, (ii) set up an internal review mechanism for dealing with complaints by unsuccessful applicants and (iii) anonymise the tests of tenderers for the purposes of the assessment made by the internal evaluators during the evaluation process.

The complainant is an IT company which participated in a Commission tender. The Commission asked all tenderers to complete two case studies to allow it to evaluate their technical abilities.

The complainant took issue with the fact that one of the case studies was very similar to a tender recently organised by an EU agency. It alleged that this gave the companies which had won that tender a competitive advantage in the Commission tender. The complainant also took issue with the Commission's decision not to disclose the names of the persons who evaluated the proposals for the Commission.

Following her inquiry, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission's design of the tender procedure did not confer a competitive advantage on the winning tenderer. As regards the disclosure of the names of the evaluators, the Ombudsman suggests that the Commission consider releasing such names in the future.

The case concerned the rejection of an application for a Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship on the grounds that the person applying for the fellowship had done an internship in a particular private company.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and recommended that, when the Research Executive Agency identifies possible irregularities in a procedure for selecting research fellows for an EU-funded project, it should carry out a proper and timely investigation into the matter with a view to remedying the situation.

The Ombudsman is now satisfied that the REA has accepted her recommendations. She has therefore closed the case.

The case concerned IMI's handling of an alleged conflict of interest in the tender procedure for a research project on risks and benefits of a vaccination scheme in Europe.

The complainant, a member of a consortium that took part in the procedure, argued that IMI failed to address whether all the members of an evaluation committee were impartial. The complainant argued that two members had links to the winning consortium, which gave rise to a conflict of interests.

The Ombudsman found that IMI applied the relevant rules correctly and found no evidence of unjust treatment of the proposal from the complainant's consortium. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration concerning this aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman further considered whether experts in a conflict of interest situation with one proposal should be allowed evaluate a competing proposal. The Ombudsman found that, as the rules followed by IMI were drawn up by the European Commission, no further inquiries into this question are justified within the context of this specific complaint.

The European Commission funds research programmes in Europe through Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. This complaint concerns alleged irregularities in the evaluation of a proposal submitted by a consortium seeking such funding under the programme's energy section.

In February 2013, the Commission informed the complainant that its project proposal was rejected. The complainant then submitted a request for redress to the Commission. As it was unhappy with the results of that redress procedure, it complained to the Ombudsman that the Commission had erred in the evaluation of its proposal. It complained also that a Commission official, in a public forum, had disclosed the results of the selection procedure two weeks before the official results were notified. During the inquiry, the complainant argued that one of the independent expert evaluators had a conflict of interest.

The Ombudsman found no maladministration regarding the evaluation of the complainant's proposal. However, the Ombudsman found that the Commission's premature disclosure of the results of the selection procedure amounted to maladministration.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman found that the Commission failed to manage and address an appearance of a conflict of interest in the case of one of its expert evaluators. This failure amounted to maladministration. With a view to improving the Commission's procedures, the Ombudsman remarked that the Commission should ensure that it acquires, at the outset, all necessary information concerning relevant interests and that it should address any appearances of a conflict of interest which arise.

The Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) manages a number of EU programmes for the European Commission, including part of the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme, COSME, LIFE and EMFF[1].

The complainant, a consortium of olive oil producers from Italy, complained to the Ombudsman concerning the Commission's decision to co-finance, under different conditions, two simultaneous programmes promoting the sale of olive oil outside the EU. In the complainant's view, inconsistencies between the terms of these programmes resulted in a competitive advantage for Spanish olive oil producers.

In the course of her inquiry, the Ombudsman found that the EU legislator had adopted new regulations with provisions on improved coordination of the two funding programmes, which implies that cases such as the present will not occur in the future. The Ombudsman thus considered the systemic aspect of the complaint to have been resolved. However, the Ombudsman found that she was not in a position to address the complainant's individual situation. She therefore closed the case.