The case concerned how the European External Action Service (EEAS) dealt with a subcontractor that provided expertise and services in the IT sector. According to the complainant, it was not paid in full for the work it had carried out. After the complainant’s negotiations with the main contractor remained fruitless, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman, taking issue with how the EEAS handled the dispute in question.

The Ombudsman recalled that the absence of a direct contractual relationship between an EU institution and a subcontractor does not exempt the former, acting in its capacity as a public authority, from its obligation to respect the subcontractor's fundamental right to good administration. This obligation encompasses, amongst other things, the duty of the EU institution to monitor the behaviour of its contractor and, if necessary, to insist that the contractor fulfils its obligations towards the subcontractor. In the case at hand, the Ombudsman noted that the EEAS had made sure that its requirements on deliverables and documentation were diligently communicated by the main contractor to the subcontractor and that the EEAS had made payments for the validated work carried out. Overall, the EEAS had undertaken multiple efforts to find a solution for the different subcontracting issues.

The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by the EEAS.

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) addressed allegations of fundamental rights violations in its activities on the Greek island of Samos. The complainants were concerned that the way caseworkers deployed in the EUAA asylum support teams conducted interviews with vulnerable asylum seekers was against EU law, and that the EUAA had failed to address this. In addition, the complainants were concerned with how the EUAA dealt with the asylum seekers’ reports of pushbacks.

The Ombudsman found that, at the time of the complaint, the EUAA had failed to ensure that caseworkers deployed in its asylum support teams were prepared to properly conduct interviews with vulnerable asylum seekers, including as regards how to take into account indicators of vulnerabilities when these emerge for the first time during the asylum interview. The Ombudsman further found that the EUAA had failed to provide vulnerable asylum seekers with an appropriate procedure to report mistakes made during interviews and to have such reports reviewed by the EUAA. The Ombudsman found that this constituted maladministration and made four recommendations to the EUAA to address the shortcomings.

The Ombudsman also sent these recommendations to her counterparts from the European Network of Ombudsmen (ENO), seeking their views on how compliance with fundamental rights is ensured in the cooperation between EUAA caseworkers and national asylum officials.

In addition, the Ombudsman identified important shortcomings in relation to how the EUAA dealt with the asylum seekers’ disclosure of experiences of pushbacks during interviews. As the EUAA started implementing measures to remedy these shortcomings during the Ombudsman’s inquiry, she did not find maladministration but instead made two suggestions for improvement.

The complainant worked as an expert for an external EU contractor on an EU-funded project in Tanzania managed by the Delegation of the European Union to Tanzania and the East African Community. The complainant claimed that the contractor breached Tanzanian law by failing to register in Tanzania, preventing him from obtaining a valid work permit. Subsequently, the contractor informed the complainant of its decision to terminate his contract, taking into account concerns about the complainant’s work raised by the EU Delegation.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s concerns about how the Delegation handled both matters. In this regard, the Ombudsman referred to her consistently taken view that, where EU institutions seek the replacement of experts working on EU projects, those individuals should be heard before they are replaced. While the Commission argued that it did not ask for the expert’s replacement, the Ombudsman found that the Commission had been involved in the replacement decision. The Ombudsman thus found that the Commission failed to ensure that the complainant’s right to be heard was respected prior to his replacement, which amounted to maladministration.  She made a suggestion for improvement aimed at preventing the issue from occurring in the future. 

In addition, the Ombudsman found that, as the complainant’s contract had been terminated, no further inquiries were justified into the work permit issue. She nevertheless made a suggestion for improvement to the Commission, inviting it to verify the matter as it may affect other experts working on the EU project. 

 

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to stop collaborating with an interim worker in its childcare services. The complainant was hired through an external contractor on weekly contracts. Following the Commission’s instructions, the contractor informed the complainant that the Commission would not request her services any longer. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman arguing that the Commission did not provide her with justified reasons for its decision.

The Ombudsman has consistently taken the view that, where EU institutions request the termination of a person’s contract with an external contractor, they should provide fair and objective reasons to justify the termination, inform the person concerned and ensure they are given the possibility to submit comments before the termination. The precarious nature of an interim worker’s situation implies that the Commission has a duty to be fair and transparent, even in the absence of a contractual relationship. In this case, the Commission did not ensure the complainant was granted a hearing and the opportunity to comment on the reasons given by the Commission before it decided to no longer request the complainant’s services. While this is regrettable, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant must have been made aware of some of the issues in the week leading up to the Commission’s decision. Due to the lack of record keeping, the Ombudsman is, however, not in a position to verify whether Commission staff discussed the issues with the complainant. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman welcomes the fact that the Commission acknowledged that it could have further explained its reasoning to the complainant in this case.

On this basis, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified and closes the case.  

The case concerned a consulting firm that was under investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) for suspected irregularities in EU-funded projects. OLAF informed the firm that it had closed the investigation, and presented financial and administrative recommendations to the Commission. Although OLAF informed the firm that it could turn to the OLAF Controller of procedural guarantees, OLAF failed to provide clear information about the applicable deadline for submitting a complaint. This meant that the firm submitted the complaint after the deadline, and the Controller rejected the complaint.

The Ombudsman found that, by failing to provide the complainant with clear information, notably regarding the closing date of the investigation, OLAF acted with maladministration. However, the Ombudsman considered that there was no appropriate recommendation to be made to address this for the complainant. She nevertheless made a suggestion aimed at preventing such problem occurring in future similar cases.

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) dealt with a request for a copy of an audio recording of a hearing in the context of an administrative inquiry about alleged harassment. The complainant, who alleged that she had been the victim of harassment, was dissatisfied that the external investigator mandated by ENISA to carry out the inquiry refused to grant her access to a recording of one of the hearings it had conducted with her.

The Ombudsman concluded that it was maladministration by ENISA to allow an independent investigator to decide on a request for a copy of an audio recording of a hearing in an administrative inquiry and to endorse the investigator’s rejection of the request based on inadequate explanations.

The Ombudsman urged ENISA to engage with her finding of maladministration by reconsidering its refusal to grant access to the audio-recording. As this was likely to require balancing the personal data rights of the complainant herself and those of other ENISA staff, ENISA should again consult its data protection officer before reaching a reasoned decision. In the event the complainant would be dissatisfied with the outcome, she could pursue the matter with the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS).