Search inquiries

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit the complainant to a selection procedure for EU staff in the field of audit due to his lack of professional experience.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board had examined the information provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the application, and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned a project to construct a floating liquefied natural gas terminal on a Croatian island. The complainants were concerned that the European Commission had included the project on the list of Projects of Common Interest (PCI) - cross-border energy infrastructure projects - and granted it EU funding under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). The complainants considered that the project did not meet the relevant criteria to be included on the PCI list and to receive EU funding.

The Ombudsman looked into the matter and did not find anything to suggest that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment when including the project on the PCI list and granting it EU funding. As the Commission has now provided clear explanations addressing the arguments raised by the complainants, the Ombudsman finds that no further inquiries into this complaint are justified.  

The case concerned the establishment of a new EU database for information on Substances of Concern In Articles (SCIP database) under the EU legislation on waste. The complainant, a European trade association, considered that the set of mandatory information to be provided by suppliers of articles to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) goes beyond what is required in the EU legislation on chemicals.

The complaint concerns the interpretation of several provisions in EU legislation on waste and chemicals. In the Ombudsman’s view, the Commission and ECHA have adopted a reasonable interpretation of the relevant provisions. While the complainant’s interpretation is different, this is not sufficient to suggest that the interpretation of the Commission and ECHA is wrong. It is for a Court to determine the correct interpretation in the event of a dispute. The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration and closed the case.

This inquiry concerned how the European Commission approves ‘active substances’ used in pesticides. In particular, the Ombudsman looked into the Commission´s practice of approving active substances for which the European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’) - the EU body in charge of the scientific safety assessment - said that it identified critical areas of concern or that it identified no safe use. The Ombudsman also revisited the Commission´s practice of approving substances for which additional data confirming their safety is needed.

The Ombudsman set out in detail to the Commission why she considers that its current practices raise concerns. While the Commission maintained that its practices comply with the applicable legal provisions, it listed changes and improvements it has made to address the issues raised. Specifically, it informed the Ombudsman of several measures that should improve the approval process and increase its transparency.

The Ombudsman is now closing this inquiry with three suggestions to the Commission to ensure that it approves substances based only on uses that have been confirmed to be safe by EFSA, that the approval process is fully transparent and that its use of the confirmatory data procedure is further restricted. Bearing in mind the commitment by the Von der Leyen Commission to take action to reduce by 50% the overall use of – and risk from – chemical pesticides by 2030, the Ombudsman expects that the Commission will follow up satisfactorily on her suggestions.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) assessment of the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of scientific research (scientific knowledge management and communication).

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) assessment of the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of scientific research (scientific knowledge management and communication).

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) assessment of the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of scientific research (scientific knowledge management and communication).

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the inclusion of gas projects on the EU’s 2019 list of Projects of Common Interest (PCIs).These are cross-border energy infrastructure projects that should help achieve EU energy and climate policy objectives. The complainant was concerned that the sustainability of gas projects on that PCI list had not been satisfactorily assessed, as is required.

The Commission had already acknowledged that the sustainability assessment of candidate gas projects had been suboptimal due to a lack of data and inadequate methodologies. In the course of the inquiry, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that it is updating the criterion used for assessing the sustainability of projects that are candidates for inclusion on the next PCI list, which it will draw up in 2021.

Among other things, this update is expected to take into account the CO₂ and methane balance, as well as efficiency impacts, in the assessment of projects. The indicator is expected to reflect the infrastructure’s expected impact on the overall greenhouse gas intensity of energy production in a given EU Member State and the emissions related to the functioning of the infrastructure itself.

The Ombudsman welcomes the fact that the Commission will ensure that this update is in place before the decision is taken on the next PCI list. The adoption date for the next PCI list is foreseen in the last quarter of 2021.

Given the EU’s objectives concerning climate change and sustainability, it is regrettable that gas projects were included on previous PCI lists, without having their sustainability properly assessed. This meant that it was not possible to rank them to identify the most sustainable ones. However, the Commission is taking the necessary action with the result that no further inquiries of the Ombudsman are justified at this point.

 

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting conference operators to the EU civil service.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.