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.

The complaint was that the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) had not ensured equal treatment of candidates in a shooting test in a selection procedure for recruiting armed security and protection officers for the EU institutions.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest that EPSO had failed to ensure equal treatment of candidates. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) alleged failure to provide the complainant with appropriate measures to accommodate his learning difficulties in the context of a selection procedure for EU civil servants in the field of audit - EPSO/AD/357/18.

The complainant had raised the same issue with EPSO in a different selection procedure (EPSO/AD/338/17) and brought a discrimination case to the General Court of the European Union. He asked the Ombudsman to ask EPSO to apply the remedies that the Court might award to him also in the other selection procedure (EPSO/AD/357/18).

The Ombudsman proposed such a solution to EPSO. EPSO said that while it could not accept the Ombudsman’s proposal while the case was still pending before the Court, it would seek to apply a fair solution once there is a judgement.

The Ombudsman considers that EPSO’s position is reasonable. She closes the inquiry, maintaining that - when the time comes - EPSO should apply any outcome of the Court case in favour of the complainant also in the context of selection procedure EPSO/AD/357/18. She will ask EPSO to keep her informed of relevant developments.

The case concerned how the European Medicines Agency (EMA) dealt with a request to authorise a medicine called Kalydeco. Kalydeco is used to treat cystic fibrosis, a serious illness caused by a number of different gene mutations.

The complainant, whose three-year old son has a specific form of cystic fibrosis, expressed concerns that EMA had incurred delays in approving the drug for use in children with this specific form of cystic fibrosis.

During the inquiry, on 20 April 2020, EMA informed the complainant and the Ombudsman that its scientific experts had, after examining all the scientific and medical evidence they needed, approved Kalydeco for use in children with the form of cystic fibrosis that affects the complainant’s child.

The Ombudsman found that no unjustified delays had occurred. EMA was also clear and transparent, and showed great care, in its contacts with the complainant.

The Ombudsman concluded that there was no maladministration by EMA and closed the inquiry.