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 Fairness [Article 11 ECGAB]

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Showing 1 - 20 of 335 results

Decision in case 2208/2019/PL on how the European Personnel Selection Office calculated a candidate’s score in a selection procedure for EU staff

Monday | 01 February 2021

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) calculation of the complainant’s score in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board calculated the complainant’s score. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 553/2020/VB on how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the education and experience of a candidate in a selection procedure for EU staff in the field of financial rules applicable to EU budget

Friday | 11 December 2020

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the complainant’s education and professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of financial rules applicable to EU budget. 

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 2231/2019/PL on how the European Personnel Selection Office calculated a candidate’s score in an interview in a selection procedure for EU staff in the field of taxation

Monday | 23 November 2020

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) calculated the complainant’s score in the field-related interview in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of taxation.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board calculated the complainant’s score. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 183/2020/DDJ on how the European Personnel Selection Office assessed the experience of a candidate in a selection procedure for EU staff in the field of scientific research

Friday | 20 November 2020

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) assessment of the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of scientific research (scientific knowledge management and communication).

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 194/2020/DDJ on how the European Personnel Selection Office assessed the experience of a candidate in a selection procedure for EU staff in the field of scientific research

Friday | 20 November 2020

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) assessment of the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of scientific research (scientific knowledge management and communication).

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 154/2020/DL on how the Research Executive Agency dealt with a recruitment procedure carried out in the context of an EU-funded project under the Horizon 2020 programme

Monday | 09 November 2020

The case concerned a recruitment procedure organised by the University of Ljubljana as part of an EU-funded project, under the Horizon 2020 programme. The complainant claimed that irregularities occurred in the recruitment procedure, and reported this to the Research Executive Agency (REA), which is responsible for the implementation of the programme. Dissatisfied with how REA dealt with his complaint, he turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman found that REA investigated the issue and advised the university on steps to take to address certain shortcomings it had identified. The university followed REA’s advice.

The Ombudsman therefore found that REA dealt appropriately with the matter and closed the case, finding no maladministration.

Decision in case 891/2020/KT on how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) dealt with technical problems in a selection procedure for border and coast guard officers

Monday | 09 November 2020

The complainant took an online language test as part of a staff selection procedure organised by Frontex to recruit border and coast guard officers. He failed the test and was thus excluded from further participation in the selection procedure. He complained that the decision to exclude him was unfair as technical problems during the speaking part of the test meant that his answers had not been properly recorded.

The Ombudsman found that Frontex was justified in excluding the complainant from further participation in the selection procedure without allowing him to retake the test. Despite the technical problems, Frontex had had sufficient material to assess the complainant´s speaking skills. The complainant had failed the language test also because of his performance in another part of the test.

The Ombudsman closes the case with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by Frontex. The Ombudsman trusts that Frontex will take greater care in communicating with candidates in staff selection procedures in case of technical problems in future.

Decision in case 563/2020/MMO on the non-renewal of an employment contract with the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)

Wednesday | 28 October 2020

The case concerned the non-renewal of the complainant’s employment contract after he had worked for 11 years at Europol.

The Ombudsman noted that there is no obligation on EU agencies to renew fixed-term employment contracts. EU agencies also enjoy wide discretion as regards their internal organisation, which includes defining the conditions for contract renewal. In this case, Europol followed the applicable rules and there is no indication that it committed a manifest error of assessment nor that it abused its power by not renewing the complainant’s contract.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

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 2218/2019/MDC on the Research Executive Agency’s decision to consider ineligible certain costs claimed by a partner in an EU-funded project on the interoperability of unmanned vehicles (DARIUS)

Wednesday | 16 September 2020

The case concerned the decision of the Research Executive Agency (REA) to consider ineligible certain costs claimed in the context of a project that was co-funded by the EU: the DARIUS project on the interoperability of unmanned vehicles in search and rescue operations.

The complainant considered that the REA had acted in a contradictory and inconsistent manner, and should not have deemed the costs ineligible. It raised various concerns about the findings of the audit on which that decision was based .

The Ombudsman found that the REA acted reasonably and in line with the grant agreement. She therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.