The case concerned the European Commission’s refusal to give partial or wider access to two documents related to a project funded in partnership with UNICEF. In refusing access, the Commission relied on five exceptions set out in EU legislation on access to documents, that is, the need to protect the public interest as regards international relations and the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or a Member State, as well as the protection of its decision-making process, the commercial interest of a third-party and the privacy and integrity of natural persons, including their personal data.

Based on the inspection of the documents at issue, the Ombudsman was not convinced by the Commission’s arguments that partial or wider disclosure would (seriously) undermine the protection of the interests invoked. The Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution asking the Commission to reconsider its position on the request, with a view to it granting the widest possible access to the documents at issue. She also reminded the Commission of its obligation to take decisions within a reasonable time and give reasons for its decisions.

The Commission accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution and provided the complainant with partial and wider access to the documents. The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s positive response to her proposal for a solution, which settled the complaint.  

The case concerned the European Commission´s handling of an infringement complaint regarding Czechia´s decision to merge its Railways Authority with the Competition Authority. The main concern was that the merger may have infringed EU law and that Czechia may have failed to ensure independent and effective supervision of the rail sector.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons to the complainant for its finding that there was no breach of EU law by Czechia. Having examined the Commission’s explanations provided during the inquiry, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had investigated the matter diligently and that its decision to close the case had been based on solid grounds.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration as regards the Commission’s assessment of the infringement complaint. Given that, in the course of the inquiry, the Commission provided a detailed statement of reasons, this aspect of the case was settled. The Ombudsman suggested to the Commission to always provide complainants with an adequate statement of reasons when intending to close an infringement case.

The case concerned a call for tenders organised by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) concerning the provision of clothing equipment for Frontex officers. The complainant, a company which also took part in the tender procedure, raised concerns with Frontex regarding the award of the contract to the winning company. More specifically, the complainant argued that Frontex should have rejected the winning tender because of the tenderer’s alleged financial difficulties and its deficiencies in the implementation of another contract, as well as because the offer it had submitted was, in the complainant’s view, abnormally low.

The Ombudsman found that Frontex had correctly carried out the eligibility check of the successful tenderer, in accordance with the applicable rules. Moreover, she found that Frontex’s assessment that the successful tender was not abnormally low was reasonable and in line with the applicable rules.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

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’.

 

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dealt with requests for review from a candidate who was unsuccessful in two selection procedures. Amongst other things, the complainant contended that EPSO had not addressed adequately his concerns, and questioned whether it had adequately reviewed his performance.

After the Ombudsman opened the inquiry, EPSO provided additional replies to the complainant. The Ombudsman found that there were inconsistencies between these and the replies he initially received, and that it was not clear whether EPSO actually reviewed its initial decisions. In the course of the inquiry, EPSO provided further clarifications to explain this.

The Ombudsman closed the case finding that no further inquiries are justified, as EPSO ultimately provided reasonable explanations about how it handled the complainant’s requests for review. However, the inquiry revealed issues with EPSO’s standard replies to requests for review. To address these, the Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement to EPSO, asking it to ensure that, in future, candidates who have filed a request for review, receive a clear, accurate and complete reply that informs them whether a review has taken place and about the reasons for EPSO’s decision.