The case concerned the fact that a staff member of the European Commission’s Paymaster Office (PMO) accidentally sent an email to the complainant, which he found insulting.

The Ombudsman found that the content of the email in question was indeed inappropriate, but deemed that the Commission had taken adequate measures to address the matter, notably by apologising to the complainant and taking measures to prevent such incidents occurring in the future, in particular by reminding staff members of their obligation to communicate politely.

The Ombudsman closed the case finding that no further inquiries were justified.  

The case concerned the refusal by the European Commission to grant aid to a staff member to cover the special educational needs of his child, which is a possibility provided for under the EU Staff Regulations. The Commission based its decision on internal rules agreed by the EU institutions concerning the aid. The rules stipulate that children whose disabilities are deemed to be below a certain threshold (20%) are not considered eligible. In cases involving a child’s schooling, the Commission also requires that an applicant provides a certificate from the European Schools stating that the school cannot accommodate the child’s needs, which the complainant had not done. 

The Ombudsman found that there was no manifest error in how the Commission handled the case and closed the case finding no maladministration by the Commission.

However, the Ombudsman took the view that the provisions in the rules regarding the 20% disability threshold may be at odds with the Commission’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD). The Ombudsman therefore made a suggestion that the Commission initiate the process to review the rules, taking into account the findings of this inquiry. This implies a decision-making process involving the other EU institutions.

The case concerned the refusal by the European Commission to grant a staff member with a child with a disability a ‘double dependent child allowance’, which is provided for under the EU Staff Regulations for assisting with the care of children with disabilities. The Commission based its decision on internal rules agreed by the EU administration concerning the allowance, according to which children whose disabilities are deemed to be below a certain threshold are not considered eligible.

The Ombudsman took the view that using thresholds on the degree of disability to exclude certain children with disabilities automatically is at odds with the relevant provision in the Staff Regulations. The allowance is intended to cover cases involving ‘heavy expenditure’, and the Staff Regulations make no reference to the degree of disability. In addition, while setting thresholds on the degree of disability to determine eligibility for financial support may make matters more straightforward and predictable from an administrative perspective, it seems to be at odds with the EU administration’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD).

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman made a solution proposal to the Commission that it initiate the process to review the applicable rules, which will involve the other EU institutions. She also urged the Commission to reassess the complainant’s request for the double dependent child allowance, taking into account the above finding, that is, not rejecting it solely because of the degree of disability that his child has been deemed to have. As the process to revise the applicable rules may take some time, and to guarantee equal treatment, the Ombudsman also urged the Commission to take this inquiry into account when considering all pending and future requests for the double dependent child allowance. This implies assessing each application for the double dependent child allowance on a case-by-case basis, and not excluding any applications merely because the child’s disability is considered to be below a certain threshold.

In response to the solution proposal, the Commission has initiated a process to review the rules setting out the threshold approach, which could lead to their revision. The Ombudsman welcomes that the Commission has acted on this aspect of her solution proposal.

However, the Commission also stated that it would await the outcome of this process before reassessing the complainant’s request or other requests. Given that this may take some time, and given the findings of this inquiry, the Ombudsman remains dissatisfied on this aspect of the case. She asks the Commission once again to consider applying the rules more flexibly for requests from now on. The Ombudsman remains convinced that the rules in question should have been revised much sooner to give effect to the commitments the EU signed up to. The Ombudsman therefore asks the Commission to follow up within three months and intends to revisit the matter if the outcome of the revision is not appropriate or is taking too long. The Ombudsman will also draw the attention of the other institutions to her findings.

 

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.