You have a complaint against an EU institution or body?

Search inquiries

Text search

Document type

Institution concerned

Type of settlement

Case number

Language

Date range

Keywords

Lack of Proportionality [Article 6 ECGAB]

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Showing 1 - 20 of 76 results

Decision in case 784/2019/JN on the European Commission´s decision to reject certain costs in the context of an EU-funded project supporting education in Somalia

Tuesday | 13 October 2020

The case concerned the European Commission´s decision to reject almost EUR 50 000 in the context of an EU-funded project supporting education in Somalia.

The Ombudsman made the preliminary finding that the Commission´s decision was not fair. She made a corresponding proposal for a solution.

The Commission disagreed with the Ombudsman´s proposal and provided additional explanations for its position. The grant agreement, it said, contains a list of non-eligible costs including salary costs of the personnel of national administrations, at issue here. Declaring the costs eligible, although they are clearly ineligible, could create a precedent that the rules in question can be circumvented. In light of these and further explanations, the Ombudsman reached the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified. The grant agreement, read as a whole, supports the Commission´s position sufficiently.

However, the Ombudsman considered it regrettable that an organisation that successfully carried out a project in good faith and incurred the costs in question, should find itself in this situation. She suggested that the Commission consider how it could improve the clarity of the information in its ‘grant agreements’ with entities selected to carry out EU-funded projects, to avoid similar cases arising in the future.

Decision in case 842/2020/KR on the European Commission’s decision to suspend a company that offers courses on the Erasmus+ ‘School Education Gateway’ platform

Thursday | 08 October 2020

The case concerned the ‘School Education Gateway’, an online platform for school education that is funded by Erasmus+, the EU's programme to support education, training, youth and sport in Europe. The complainant is the owner and manager of an education and training provider, which offered courses on the platform.  

The European Commission, which is responsible for the programme, suspended the complainant’s company after it had established that the complainant’s company had repeatedly violated the platform’s terms and conditions.

The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found that the Commission’s actions were reasonable and proportionate. She therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 1708/2019/NH on the EU Publications Office refusing to publish a notice for tender in the Official Journal of the European Union

Friday | 08 May 2020

The case concerned the refusal by the EU Publications Office to publish a contract notice in the Official Journal of the EU because it contained text in more than one language. The complainant, who works for a Belgian cultural foundation, contended that the Publications Office had failed to give the legal basis for its refusal.

In the course of the Ombudsman inquiry, the Publications Office gave the legal basis for refusing to publish the complainant’s notice. It also explained how it handles issues of this kind.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the finding that the Publications Office had settled the aspect of the complaint that concerned the legal basis for the refusal to publish the contract notice. The Ombudsman further found that the Office’s explanations as to how it handles issues of this nature do not reveal any maladministration. The Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement to ensure that language requirements are clearly explained on the Publication Office’s website.

Decision in case 2011/2019/LM on how the European Commission dealt with the fact that the wrong deadline was given for traineeship applicants to upload supporting documents

Wednesday | 19 February 2020

The complainant applied for a traineeship at the European Commission and was asked to submit supporting documents. When she checked her online application account, she noticed that the deadline set for doing so had already expired by six months. When she logged in again, one week later, she learned that the actual deadline had expired earlier that day. Dissatisfied with the Commission’s decision to exclude her from the selection procedure, she turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman finds it regrettable that the Commission initially gave an incorrect deadline in the application accounts. While the Commission corrected the error within 15 minutes, it was alerted to the fact that some candidates had seen it. As such, it should have sent a notification to all candidates about the correct deadline.

At the same time, the complainant herself was required to check her application account at least twice a week and, in this case, failed to do so. It was therefore reasonable for the Commission not to accept her supporting documents. The Ombudsman closes the case, welcoming the steps the Commission has taken to avoid similar mistakes happening in the future.

Decision in case 306/2018/JAP concerning how the European Commission dealt with an audit of three EU-funded projects

Tuesday | 26 November 2019

The complainant took part in three EU-funded projects in the context of the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. Its complaint to the Ombudsman concerned how the European Commission dealt with an audit of the expenditure claimed in the context of the projects.

The auditors found that the complainant’s time-recording system was unreliable. They asked the complainant to provide alternative evidence to substantiate the costs for personnel and other actions. The complainant submitted a number of documents to prove the costs incurred in the projects. However, the Commission rejected them as unreliable and, according to the complainant, decided to recover more than EUR 225 000.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how the Commission dealt with the audit, and its decision to recover funds. Her inquiry team met with the Commission’s representatives and inspected its file.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission took the complainant’s allegation that the audit was badly conducted seriously, investigated the matter and assessed the alternative evidence provided.

While the Ombudsman recognises the Commission’s duty to safeguard the financial interests of the EU and acknowledges its efforts to obtain alternative evidence from the complainant, she was not convinced that, by rejecting the personnel costs in full, the Commission had adopted a fair or proportionate approach. Since the Commission, on three separate occasions, rejected a request to consider at least a partial waiver of the recovery, the Ombudsman concluded that further inquiries were unlikely to serve any purpose. She makes a suggestion for improvement to seek to avoid similar cases occurring in future.

Decision in case 502/2019/KT on the European Commission’s refusal to reimburse the hotel costs of a freelance interpreter

Thursday | 19 September 2019

The case concerned the European Commission’s refusal to reimburse the costs of a freelance interpreter who had to stay one night in a hotel for work purposes. The Commission considered that the hotel invoice was incomplete. The complainant, who had unsuccessfully tried to obtain from the hotel an invoice with the required information, contended that the Commission´s refusal was unfair.

While the Ombudsman understands the complainant´s sense of grievance, she accepted the Commission’s refusal to reimburse the hotel costs. The refusal was in line with the applicable rules, which are put in place to ensure proper use of public money and therefore have to be equally applied to all. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 1152/2018/JN on the fairness of the Research Executive Agency’s decision to recover funds

Thursday | 22 August 2019

The case concerned the Research Executive Agency’s decision to recover a part of its financial contribution to a project in the area of crisis management. The complainant, who represents a company having participated in the project, argued that the decision was unfair in its respect.

The Ombudsman re-examined the decision in the context of the case and found no maladministration.

Decision in case 1490/2017/JAP on the European Commission’s rejection of costs incurred in a project aimed at tackling the unemployment of young people in Slovenia and Croatia

Tuesday | 30 July 2019

The case concerned the Commission’s rejection of costs related to the administration and implementation of a project aimed at tackling the unemployment of young people in Slovenia and Croatia. The Commission refused to make the final payment of some EUR 24 000. It argued that the corresponding costs which were due to an increase in the working days of a number of employees were exaggerated.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had not taken into account the extension of time necessary to complete the project. Given that an extension had been granted, it was reasonable to expect that the number of working days would increase as well. She considered the Commission’s conduct inconsistent and asked the Commission to reconsider its position.

The Commission reassessed its position but, invoking the principle of sound financial management, decided not to allow any further costs.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry as there was no prospect for a positive result for the complainant. To avoid similar problems in the future, the Ombudsman suggested that the Commission sensitise beneficiaries taking over the implementation of projects to the need of resubmitting an updated estimated budget and working time arrangements.