You have a complaint against an EU institution or body?

Search inquiries

Case
Date range
Keywords
Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Showing 1 - 20 of 957 results

Decision on how the EU Monitoring Mission in Georgia dealt with issues related to the performance evaluation report of a former staff member (case 1041/2021/OAM)

Friday | 24 June 2022

This decision is not published as there is a risk that the complainant may be identified from the specific circumstances of the case.

Decision on how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) responded to concerns regarding the composition of an interview panel in a selection procedure for EU staff in the field of taxation (case 1169/2020/KT)

Thursday | 23 June 2022

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed a candidate in an interview in the context of a procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of taxation. The complainant considered that his low score in the interview was due to the fact that the interview panel did not include any expert in taxation. He was dissatisfied with how EPSO addressed his concerns.

In the course of the inquiry, EPSO provided adequate clarifications about the expertise of the selection board. The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how EPSO had carried out the interview. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision on how the European Commission (PMO) divided benefits derived from child allowances between two divorced EU staff members (case 1528/2021/FA)

Thursday | 02 June 2022

The case concerned the decision by the European Commission’s Paymaster Office (PMO) to divide benefits derived from the child allowance between two divorced EU staff members. The complainant claimed that she should receive all derived benefits because she bears the majority of the costs for raising the child.

The Ombudsman finds the approach adopted by the PMO to decide on the division of derived benefits reasonable and in line with EU case-law. However, the Ombudsman finds that the PMO gave incoherent explanations to the complainant in its reply to her administrative complaint on the matter. However, with new internal administrative rules having been adopted that cover this area, the Ombudsman trusts that the PMO will ensure consistency in how the rules are applied and clarity in the information it gives to EU staff members. 

The Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries were justified in this case and closed the inquiry.

Decision on how the European Commission applied the moderation policy for its staff intranet to a post on a discussion forum (case 9/2022/NH)

Thursday | 02 June 2022

The case concerned a message related to the COVID-19 pandemic that was posted on the European Commission’s intranet forum, which is reserved for Commission staff members. The complainant, a Commission staff member, had reported the message as hate speech and wanted the Commission to remove it. The Commission refused and the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s decision not to remove the message was reasonable because it did not consider the message to be hate speech or contrary to its moderation policy. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration in this case.

Decision on how the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) carried out a selection procedure for the position of legal officer (case 1818/2021/FA)

Friday | 20 May 2022

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) carried out a selection procedure for the position of legal officer and assessed the complainant’s application.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a procedural error or a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s application and therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.