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 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.

The case concerned the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to allow a candidate, who was placed in COVID-19 quarantine, to reschedule her test in the context of a selection procedure for contract agent staff (CAST Permanent selection procedure).

The Ombudsman found that EPSO provided reasonable explanations as to why it was not able to provide an alternative testing date to the complainant. On that basis, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding that there was no maladministration by EPSO.

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.