The case concerned how the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) dealt with complaints from a national assistant of the European Delegated Prosecutors in Italy. The complainant alleged that the European Delegated Prosecutors of the EPPO Office in Rome interfered in two administrative procedures he initiated at national level. The complaint also concerned how the EPPO dealt with a request for public access to documents submitted by the complainant.

The Ombudsman found shortcomings in the EPPO’s handling of the complaints in terms of how the EPPO communicated its position to the complainant and the reasons for its conclusion not to take further action. The EPPO addressed this in the course of the inquiry by providing clear and reasonable explanations for its position. The Ombudsman also found that the EPPO did not breach the complainant’s rights when dealing with the complaints.

Regarding the access to documents request, the Ombudsman found that the reasons invoked by the EPPO not to disclose the requested documents do not appear to be in line with the EU legislation on public access to documents. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman found that the decision not to disclose the documents requested by the complainant was reasonable, albeit for a different reason than that relied on by the EPPO.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that no further inquiries are justified.

The case concerned how an EU Mission handled the prolonged medical leave of a seconded national expert. The complainant questioned the basis for keeping him on medical leave, the procedure followed, the protection of his medical data and the decision to stop paying his daily allowance during part of his absence.

The Ombudsman found that the Mission had reasonable grounds for its actions. It relied on assessments by several medical professionals, involved the complainant’s seconding authority and allowed him to return to work once the relevant conditions were met. The Mission also applied the relevant rules when it stopped paying the complainant’s daily allowance.

The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents drawn up in the context of a European Commission audit concerning compliance by farmers in Lithuania with environmental requirements that they have to meet to receive EU funding.

The Commission refused to give public access to the documents arguing that disclosure would put the successful completion of the audit at risk.

Based on the inspection of relevant documents, the Ombudsman found that the Commission was justified in refusing public access to the documents at issue. She thus closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

That said, as the Commission has in the meantime confirmed that the audit has been concluded, the Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will grant the widest possible access to the documents, if the complainant were to pursue the matter.

The case concerned the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to Papua New Guinea to reject the complainant’s tender as abnormally low. The complainant argued that the Delegation failed to ask for specific clarifications, to reason its decision and based its rejection on elements unrelated to the price quoted in the tender.

The Ombudsman found that the Delegation should have been more specific when requesting clarifications from the complainant on the price and should have established a clear link between the price and all the elements taken into consideration in its assessment. The Delegation also failed to sufficiently substantiate its decision to reject the tender as abnormally low, in breach of the duty to state reasons. These shortcomings amount to maladministration.

While the Commission provided additional clarifications during the inquiry, the Ombudsman found that these clarifications did not sufficiently address the shortcomings identified.

The Ombudsman considered that it would not be appropriate to make a corresponding recommendation in this case as the contract has been awarded. She nevertheless made three suggestions aimed at preventing such problems occurring in future similar cases.

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’.