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 how the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) handled a complaint by a staff member hired through an external contractor, alleging psychological harassment by their supervisor.

The Ombudsman found that EUSPA took the allegations seriously, opened an administrative inquiry, interviewed relevant persons and witnesses, and reached a conclusion following that inquiry. EUSPA thereby followed the procedural framework in place. The Ombudsman found no indication of a manifest error of assessment and thus no maladministration in EUSPA’s handling of the harassment complaint.

The Ombudsman nevertheless made a suggestion to EUSPA to develop better methods of communication for this type of harassment complaint, to ensure that persons not covered by the procedural safeguards in the EU Staff Regulations receive clear and consistent information throughout the procedure, including proper reasoning when the procedure is closed.

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) handled a complaint by a staff member hired through an external contractor, alleging psychological harassment by their supervisor.

The Ombudsman found that EUSPA took the allegations seriously, opened an administrative inquiry, interviewed relevant persons and witnesses, and reached a conclusion following that inquiry. EUSPA thereby followed the procedural framework in place. The Ombudsman found no indication of a manifest error of assessment and thus no maladministration in EUSPA’s handling of the harassment complaint.

The Ombudsman nevertheless made a suggestion to EUSPA to develop better methods of communication for this type of harassment complaint, to ensure that persons not covered by the procedural safeguards in the EU Staff Regulations receive clear and consistent information throughout the procedure, including proper reasoning when the procedure is closed.

The case concerned how the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) handled the complainant’s reinstatement following a period of leave on personal grounds. The complainant considered that EMSA had failed to reinstate her at the earliest possible opportunity after she requested to return to work in 2022 and argued that, as a consequence, her seniority and salary step should be recalculated as if she had been reinstated from that date.

The Ombudsman found that EMSA had assessed the complainant’s suitability for all relevant vacancies that arose during the period concerned and had given her the priority consideration required under the applicable rules. The Ombudsman found no evidence of a manifest error in EMSA’s assessment that those vacancies were not suitable for the complainant and therefore no basis to conclude that her reinstatement had been wrongly delayed. The inquiry nevertheless highlighted the importance of clear information, regular follow-up and robust documentation in cases where reinstatement following leave on personal grounds is delayed.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. At the same time, the Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement that EMSA should ensure that staff members requesting leave on personal grounds exceeding six months are clearly informed of the potential risks of a delayed reinstatement and that staff members awaiting reinstatement receive regular updates on how their profiles are being assessed against available vacancies.