Search inquiries

The case concerned the selection procedure for appointing a European prosecutor, part of the ‘College’ of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The complainant is an unsuccessful candidate, who considered that there were irregularities in the selection procedure and the ad hoc ‘selection panel’s’ opinion to exclude his candidature for the position. In addition, the complainant did not receive a reply to concerns he raised.

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team took the view that there was a lack of clarity around possible review procedures and made a proposal for a solution and a suggestion for improvement to the Council of the EU. The Council rejected the proposals.

The selection procedure for the posts of European prosecutors lacks any mechanism providing for acts or omissions of the selection panel to be reviewed. There is clearly an accountability vacuum and the Council has missed an opportunity to enhance public trust in and the legitimacy of the selection procedure for these important posts. The solution proposal and suggestion for improvement would have helped address these shortcomings.

As the selection panel is not an EU body, which can be subject to an inquiry of the Ombudsman, and both the Council and Commission have refused to take responsibility for the actions of the panel, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified and closes the case.

The case concerned the fact that the European Commission never invited the complainant, a person with a disability, for an interview although he had passed an EU staff selection procedure in the field of food safety and had been included on a shortlist from which successful candidates may be recruited. The complainant argued that he had been discriminated against because of his disability.

The Ombudsman found no indication that the Commission had discriminated against the complainant. In view of this, and given that the shortlist of successful candidates in which the complainant was included is no longer valid, the Ombudsman concluded that no further inquiries into the complaint were justified.

The complaint concerned the refusal by the European Commission to put on hold an anti-dumping investigation into imports of Chinese aluminium products or, in the alternative, to give an Italian importer more time to respond to information requests sent to it by the Commission.

The Ombudsman noted that the Commission had already extended the deadlines to take account of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 crisis. Extending the deadlines further may have undermined the ability of the Commission to meet its obligations to complete the anti-dumping investigation within the legal deadlines that are binding on it. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the Commission acted reasonably and she closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

The complainant participated in a selection procedure organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) for the recruitment of EU civil servants. During the test, the complainant encountered a technical problem with her computer. Even though the incident did not cause any time loss, the complainant considered that her performance in the test was affected by the incident. She argued that EPSO had failed to take proper action to remedy the disadvantage that she suffered and she thus complained to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the matter had been dealt with according to the established procedures. EPSO and the selection board had taken an approach based on objective criteria and applied it equally to all the candidates in the same situation. The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned a selection procedure organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to recruit communication experts to the EU administration. The complainant, who did not pass the selection procedure, argued that one of the tests required candidates to have prior knowledge of Brussels, which gave an unfair advantage to candidates who were familiar with the city.

The Ombudsman found that neither the test assignment, nor the scoring grid used to assess the candidates’ answers, indicated that prior knowledge of Brussels was required.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the finding that there had been no maladministration by EPSO in this case.