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.

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 the refusal of the European Investment Bank (EIB) to give full public access to documents in relation to investigations and recommendations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The EIB identified numerous documents as falling within the scope of the complainant’s request, including OLAF final reports and recommendations, as well as the EIB’s own disciplinary decisions. While the EIB gave partial access to ten of the 13 identified final OLAF reports, it refused access to the remaining documents in their entirety. Concerning the EIB’s disciplinary decisions the EIB provided a summary of the disciplinary follow-up actions taken. In doing so, the EIB relied on exceptions to public access in its transparency rules, arguing that full disclosure would undermine the protection of personal data, the purpose of investigations and its decision-making process.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry, and her inquiry team inspected the documents at issue in the complainant’s public access request. The inspection showed that a significant amount of the information contained in those documents constituted personal data, which, if disclosed, could make the individual EIB staff members investigated by OLAF identifiable. Given the delicate balancing exercise required to determine whether disclosure could lead to the identification of individuals and considering that the EIB had provided the complainant with an overview of the follow-up actions taken and the sanctions imposed, the Ombudsman considered that the EIB’s refusal to give full public access was overall reasonable. She therefore closed the case finding no maladministration. That said, while a significant amount of the information contained in the withheld documents clearly constitutes personal data, the Ombudsman noted that an amount of the information, even if limited, was administrative in nature and did not constitute personal data. She thus made a suggestion for improvement that the EIB consider whether at least some parts of its disciplinary decisions containing purely administrative information could be disclosed without risking the disclosure of personal data.

The case concerned the European Central Bank's (ECB) handling of procedural aspects related to a whistleblower report that the complainant[1] submitted in 2022. The whistleblower report concerned an alleged family relationship between a hiring officer and the person who was hired.

The complainant experienced behaviour by the alleged wrongdoers that they believed amounted to inappropriate behaviour (including harassment). The complainant requested a related administrative investigation.

The ECB decided to assess the whistleblower report jointly with the issue of the alleged inappropriate behaviour. It also informed the complainant that the evidence submitted did not warrant the opening of an administrative investigation. The complainant contested both points through an administrative complaint, which the ECB declared inadmissible for lack of individual interest (the joint handling of the two issues) or for lack of any challengeable decision (the failure to open an administrative investigation).

The complainant turned to the Ombudsman, contesting the ECB's decision of inadmissibility. In the course of the Ombudsman's inquiry, the complainant also asked the Ombudsman to look more closely into the handling of whistleblower reports and complaints at the ECB.

The Ombudsman found that the reasons given by the ECB for declaring the complainant's administrative complaint inadmissible were not convincing.

The Ombudsman also noted that, during her inquiry, significant developments in the matter had occurred and that related high-level internal investigations were still ongoing. Moreover, the ECB was finalising an own-initiative review of its reporting, investigation and disciplinary framework. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman concluded that no further inquiries were justified at that point in time, and closed the inquiry.

 

[1] For reasons of anonymity, including as regards the gender of the complainant, the text refers to the complainant as ‘they’/’their’/’them’.