The case concerned how the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) handled a complaint by a staff member hired through an external contractor, alleging psychological harassment by their supervisor.

The Ombudsman found that EUSPA took the allegations seriously, opened an administrative inquiry, interviewed relevant persons and witnesses, and reached a conclusion following that inquiry. EUSPA thereby followed the procedural framework in place. The Ombudsman found no indication of a manifest error of assessment and thus no maladministration in EUSPA’s handling of the harassment complaint.

The Ombudsman nevertheless made a suggestion to EUSPA to develop better methods of communication for this type of harassment complaint, to ensure that persons not covered by the procedural safeguards in the EU Staff Regulations receive clear and consistent information throughout the procedure, including proper reasoning when the procedure is closed.

The case concerned how the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) handled the complainant’s reinstatement following a period of leave on personal grounds. The complainant considered that EMSA had failed to reinstate her at the earliest possible opportunity after she requested to return to work in 2022 and argued that, as a consequence, her seniority and salary step should be recalculated as if she had been reinstated from that date.

The Ombudsman found that EMSA had assessed the complainant’s suitability for all relevant vacancies that arose during the period concerned and had given her the priority consideration required under the applicable rules. The Ombudsman found no evidence of a manifest error in EMSA’s assessment that those vacancies were not suitable for the complainant and therefore no basis to conclude that her reinstatement had been wrongly delayed. The inquiry nevertheless highlighted the importance of clear information, regular follow-up and robust documentation in cases where reinstatement following leave on personal grounds is delayed.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. At the same time, the Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement that EMSA should ensure that staff members requesting leave on personal grounds exceeding six months are clearly informed of the potential risks of a delayed reinstatement and that staff members awaiting reinstatement receive regular updates on how their profiles are being assessed against available vacancies.

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) handled a complaint by a staff member hired through an external contractor, alleging psychological harassment by their supervisor.

The Ombudsman found that EUSPA took the allegations seriously, opened an administrative inquiry, interviewed relevant persons and witnesses, and reached a conclusion following that inquiry. EUSPA thereby followed the procedural framework in place. The Ombudsman found no indication of a manifest error of assessment and thus no maladministration in EUSPA’s handling of the harassment complaint.

The Ombudsman nevertheless made a suggestion to EUSPA to develop better methods of communication for this type of harassment complaint, to ensure that persons not covered by the procedural safeguards in the EU Staff Regulations receive clear and consistent information throughout the procedure, including proper reasoning when the procedure is closed.

The complainant is a Polish company that is the subject of an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into possible fraud against the EU budget. The complainant raised concerns with how OLAF conducted an ‘on-the-spot check’ on the complainant’s premises. In particular, the complainant contended that: its management board had not been informed about the inspection; one of the OLAF ‘investigators’ that conducted the check had not provided adequate proof of his identity in the context of Polish law; the authenticity of the OLAF’s authorisation to carry out the check could not be verified; and the investigators had demonstrated bias against the complainant.

The Ombudsman found no maladministration in how OLAF had carried out the on-the-spot check.

The case concerned how the European Commission dealt with an infringement complaint about how France deducts social security contributions from Swiss pensions of pensioners residing in France. The complainant argued that the Commission had misinterpreted the complaint and had failed to address the issues raised.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had failed to properly handle the infringement complaint. By including the complainant’s complaint in an ongoing infringement procedure, in the context of an EU Pilot procedure, the Commission had failed to address the specific issues raised by the complainant. Nevertheless, as the Commission had addressed the issues raised by the complainant in the context of another complaint, the Ombudsman found that no further inquiries were justified in this case.

To prevent such issues arising in the future, the Ombudsman suggested that, if the Commission decides to add a complaint to an ongoing infringement procedure, in particular in the context of an EU Pilot procedure, it should ensure that it adequately addresses the specific issues raised in that complaint.

The complainants, a group of civil society organisations, were concerned that the European Commission did not assess human rights risks before providing support to African countries to develop surveillance capabilities, notably in the context of the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTFA). The complainants contended that, before agreeing to support projects with potential surveillance implications, such as biometric databases or mobile phone monitoring technologies, the Commission should have carried out prior risk and impact assessments to ensure that the projects do not result in violations of human rights (such as the right to privacy).

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman concluded that the measures in place were not sufficient to ensure the human rights impact of EUFTA projects was properly assessed. To address the shortcomings she identified, the Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement to ensure that, for future EU Trust Fund projects, there is a prior human rights impact assessment.

The case concerned information provided by the European Commission about the status of two infringement complaints.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission could have provided more comprehensive information about the status of one of the complaints, notably in relation to the ongoing ‘multiple complaints procedure’ covering some of the issues raised in that complaint. However, it dealt with the complaints in a reasonable manner.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.