The case concerned the time taken by the European Commission to deal with an infringement complaint against Italy concerning the working time and leave arrangements for staff of the financial police (Guardia di Finanza) in Italy. The complainant had made an infringement complaint to the Commission about the matter in 2022. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, he considered that the Commission had failed to take a decision on his infringement complaint within a reasonable time.

Based on her inquiry, the Ombudsman found that the Commission provided an adequate justification for the time taken so far. Therefore, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration. However, given the time taken to date, she encouraged the Commission to deal with the case as a priority.

The case concerned a staff member of the European Central Bank (ECB) who considered that he was harassed by his line manager. He complained about this in early 2021. The ECB launched an administrative inquiry, and at the same time assigned the complainant to another workplace in the ECB for his own protection.

The administrative inquiry took two and half years, and was closed three years after the complainant first asked for help. The administrative inquiry found that the complainant had been harassed, and formally initiated a disciplinary procedure against the line manager.

During the ECB’s follow-up to the outcome of the administrative inquiry, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman. He alleged that there were unreasonable delays in the process.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the ECB finalised the disciplinary procedure and the complainant eventually returned to his main workplace.

The Ombudsman found that there had been unreasonable delays in all phases of the ECB’s handling of the matter, and that the ECB had failed to address important issues in its follow-up. The Ombudsman therefore proposed a solution to the ECB, namely that it apologise, pay compensation and ensure meaningful internal communication to staff about the harassment case.

In its reply to the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, the ECB expressed regret for what had happened. It organised additional internal communication about the harassment case. It did not, however, find that it had the elements necessary for considering financial compensation. The Ombudsman found that the harm that was caused by the ECB’s handling of the complainant’s harassment case had regrettably not been repaired by the ECB’s response to the proposal for a solution. However, as a recommendation reiterating the same points would not appear to be useful, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with suggestions for systemic improvements and again asking the ECB to engage with the complainant to identify the relevant financial consequences of its maladministration.

The case concerned the time taken by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to decide on two complaints made by the same complainant in 2023 concerning the processing of the complainant’s personal data.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the EDPS provided reasonable explanations concerning the handling of the cases and the delay. The EDPS has also finalised its preliminary assessment of the issues raised.

The Ombudsman also noted that the EDPS took measures aimed at addressing its backlog to avoid similar situations in the future and therefore closed the case with the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified.