Showing 1 - 20 of 74 results
Decision of the European Ombudsman in the case 1691/2020/VS on how the European Commission dealt with a complaint that Ireland had breached EU law (Regulation (EU) 2016/1012 also known as the ‘Animal Breeding Regulation’)
Friday | 23 October 2020
How the European Commission dealt with concerns raised about the research and development information related to active substances in pesticides that it approves
Wednesday | 21 October 2020
Decision of the European Ombudsman on the European Commission's failure to answer correspondence concerning the interpretation of the data protection periods under the Pesticides Regulation (Regulation 1107/2009)
Monday | 19 October 2020
The European Commission’s refusal to provide public access to documents pertaining to the closure of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA)
Tuesday | 13 October 2020
How the European Commission deals with research and development information related to active substances in pesticides that it approves
Friday | 28 August 2020
Decision in case 715/2020/EIS on the Commission’s alleged failure to deal in a timely manner with a state aid complaint concerning the durum wheat sector in Italy
Tuesday | 18 August 2020
The case concerned the timeliness of the Commission’s action in dealing with a state aid complaint concerning the durum wheat sector in Italy. The complainant claimed that, two years after the submission of his complaint, the Commission had not reached a final decision on the case.
The Ombudsman inspected the Commission’s file on the case and obtained further clarifications during a meeting.
The Commission explained how it had proceeded based on its internal rules and procedures. It also explained the reasons for the delays it had incurred. The Ombudsman found that there was no evidence that the Commission had neglected the file in any way or that there had been unfounded postponements in its handling of the matter.
The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry, finding that there was no maladministration in how the Commission has been handling the complainant’s state aid complaint.
European Food Safety Authority and the alleged leak of confidential information concerning an active substance used in pesticides
Monday | 20 July 2020
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and alleged leak of confidential information on the pesticide Mancozeb
Friday | 17 July 2020
The European Commission’s refusal to grant public access to the final report of an audit regarding potential conflicts of interest with EU funds in Czechia
Monday | 08 June 2020
The Commission’s alleged failure to deal in a timely manner with a state aid complaint concerning the durum wheat sector in Italy
Tuesday | 19 May 2020
1782/2019/EWM on the refusal of the European Commission to make public records of payments made to farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy
Thursday | 07 May 2020
Decision in case 1782/2019/EWM on the refusal of the European Commission to make public records of payments made to farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy
Wednesday | 06 May 2020
The case concerned a request from a journalist to the European Commission to give public access to the detailed contents of a database used to audit how Member States pay Common Agricultural Policy subsidies to farmers. The Commission stated that the database was not designed to provide the detailed individualised information sought by the complainant.
The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and, while she understood the strong public service need for detailed oversight of CAP funds, she also found that the Commission is subject to a number of legal constraints regarding public access to records of payments made to individual farmers. She considered that the Commission’s statement that the database has been designed to allow the Commission to extract aggregated data for auditing purposes only and not for the scrutiny of individual payments, was factually correct. EU access to documents rules do not require the Commission to create new search tools for the sole purpose of dealing with requests for access to the contents of a database. While she considered that the Commission gives appropriate access to the aggregated data contained in the database, she accepts the complainant’s view that a gap exists vis-a-vis the appropriate transparency of these payments. She will bring this to the attention of the legislators through the forwarding of this decision.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.
The European Commission’s refusal to grant public access to the final report on an audit regarding conflicts of interest of the AGROFERT Group and the Czech Prime Minister
Thursday | 30 April 2020
Entscheidung der Europäischen Bürgerbeauftragten im obengenannten Fall über die angebliche fehlerhafte Fallbearbeitung der Europäischen Kommission im Zusammenhang mit Ihrer Vertragsverletzungsbeschwerde über die Offenlegung der Agrarbeihilfen Luxemburgs
Wednesday | 01 April 2020
The alleged failure of the Delegation of the European Union to Liberia to reply to an email concerning a private business deal on the import of Liberian products into the EU market
Thursday | 06 February 2020
Decision in case 1981/2019/KR on the European Commission’s alleged inaction concerning an application to approve an increase of the maximum residual levels for glyphosate on borage seeds
Thursday | 28 November 2019
The European Commission’s failure to grant access to individual payment records under the Common Agricultural Policy that are recorded in the Clearance of Accounts Audit Trail System
Tuesday | 01 October 2019
Decision in case 847/2018/MMO on the recovery of funds from a non-governmental organisation active in a sustainable development project for agriculture in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Wednesday | 25 September 2019
The case concerned the fairness of the Commission’s claim to recover funds the complainant received as the beneficiary of a grant agreement for sustainable development in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Following an audit, the Commission found certain expenses to be ineligible under the grant agreement and asked that they be paid back. Those expenses corresponded to work a third party did for the beneficiary. The Commission and the complainant disagreed as to the eligibility of the amount in question and the meaning of several provisions contained in the grant agreement.
The Ombudsman found that the Commission was correct in seeking to recover the amount in question, as neither the beneficiary nor one of its partners under the grant agreement had paid it. Thus, it did not constitute an eligible expense. She also found that the Commission had provided sufficient explanations to the beneficiary on its position and on the interpretation of the relevant rules.
The Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.
Decision in case 526/2019/MMO on how the European Commission evaluated the eligibility of an organisation for a programme aiming at addressing drought emergencies and supporting resilience for sustainable livelihoods
Tuesday | 18 June 2019
Sprendimas byloje 211/2019/JF dėl Komisijos nesuteiktos informacijos dėl bendros žemės ūkio politikos
Tuesday | 14 May 2019