The case concerned how the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) ensured an effective review process for a project proposal rejected for EU funding. The complainant argued that, despite her attempts to get assistance from the relevant IT Helpdesk, the system for making a request for review though the online account did not work, thereby depriving her of the possibility to request a review.

The Ombudsman found that CINEA gave clear information to the complainant about how to request an evaluation review and what to do in case of problems. The complainant did not provide any evidence of the technical problems she had encountered and there was no indication of any technical problem with the online system during the relevant period. The complainant did not reach out to the IT Helpdesk to seek further help, although there was still time to do so.

The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by CINEA.

The case concerned a consulting firm that was under investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) for suspected irregularities in EU-funded projects. OLAF informed the firm that it had closed the investigation, and presented financial and administrative recommendations to the Commission. Although OLAF informed the firm that it could turn to the OLAF Controller of procedural guarantees, OLAF failed to provide clear information about the applicable deadline for submitting a complaint. This meant that the firm submitted the complaint after the deadline, and the Controller rejected the complaint.

The Ombudsman found that, by failing to provide the complainant with clear information, notably regarding the closing date of the investigation, OLAF acted with maladministration. However, the Ombudsman considered that there was no appropriate recommendation to be made to address this for the complainant. She nevertheless made a suggestion aimed at preventing such problem occurring in future similar cases.

The complainant was dissatisfied with how the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) had addressed his concerns about lack of transparency in its staff selection procedures. He claimed, among other things, that EFCA did not inform unsuccessful candidates about the outcome of their applications. 

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked EFCA for clarifications on the matter.

In the course of the inquiry, EFCA informed the Ombudsman that it intended to take steps to be able to inform all unsuccessful candidates individually after each stage of a selection procedure. The Ombudsman invited EFCA to inform her within six months of the measures it has put in place to that effect and considered that no further inquiries are justified into this matter at this stage.

The Ombudsman’s inquiry also demonstrated issues with how candidates can submit complaints about selection procedures. In the course of the inquiry, EFCA put in place a functional mailbox for administrative complaints from unsuccessful candidates. The Ombudsman welcomed this step and closed this aspect of the inquiry as settled.