The case concerned how the European Commission (EU Delegation to the African Union) handled a grant application and concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest.

The complainant took part in a call for proposals for a project to support pan-African electoral capacities. The Delegation rejected the complainant’s application because it sought EU funding above the maximum percentage allowed under the call. The complainant claimed that this was a typographical error and that the Delegation should have requested clarifications instead of rejecting its application. The complainant also claimed that an expert who had been involved in the development of the project funded under this call was working for an entity that submitted an application under the call.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission, based on its own internal guidelines, should have considered the complainant’s mistake as an ‘obvious clerical error’ and asked the complainant for clarification and/or corrected the complainant’s error. She also found that the Commission failed to adequately assess the complainant’s allegations of a potential conflict of interest. These two shortcomings amounted to maladministration. For both findings, the Ombudsman considered that it would not be appropriate to make corresponding recommendations, as in the meantime the grant has already been awarded. She nevertheless made three suggestions aimed at preventing such problems occurring in future similar cases.

The case concerned how the European Commission investigated the complainant’s concerns about an alleged conflict of interest. The EU Delegation to Ukraine organised a call for tenders to support policy and institutional reforms in agriculture in Ukraine. The complainant, the head of a consortium that submitted a tender, argued that the successful tenderer had a competitive advantage as its leading expert participated in meetings, where he might have obtained information on the project that was not available to the other bidders. The complainant contended that this was in breach of the principle of equal treatment.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission took the allegations seriously and thoroughly investigated the matter in line with the applicable rules and EU case-law. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The inquiry concerned how the European Commission monitors that Member States use EU Structural and Investment (ESI) funds to promote the right of persons with disabilities and older persons to independent living and inclusion in the community (deinstitutionalisation), and whether the Commission applies sanctions if they do not.

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received contributions from national ombudsmen and civil society organisations.  

The Ombudsman found that the Commission could provide clearer guidance about the need to promote deinstitutionalisation in the context of the use of ESI funds. She also considered that the Commission could take steps to improve the monitoring of ESI-funded activities, and that it should take a more proactive approach to enforcement, particularly where concerns are raised that ESI-funded activities are at odds with the obligation to promote deinstitutionalisation. The Ombudsman also pointed to the need to be particularly vigilant in relation to funds deployed under the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry, making ten suggestions aimed at improving the guidance issued by the Commission and the monitoring process. She emphasised the need for the Commission to move quickly, given the additional funding programmes created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as recent changes to the rules in place.

The Ombudsman will consider returning to this issue in future, to assess progress.

The complainant wrote to the European Commission asking it to take a position on whether there is a legal basis for it to suspend EU funding to Hungary. He complained to the European Ombudsman because the Commission had not addressed this specific question in its replies to him.

The Ombudsman asked the Commission to reply to the complainant’s question. In its reply, the Commission described in detail the conditions that must be fulfilled for it to suspend funding to Member States under the European Structural and Investment Funds. It also provided details of its proposed changes to the rules. The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s reply was sufficiently clear and comprehensive.

Since the Commission has settled the complaint, the Ombudsman closes the case.