The case concerned how the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) dealt with complaints from a national assistant of the European Delegated Prosecutors in Italy. The complainant alleged that the European Delegated Prosecutors of the EPPO Office in Rome interfered in two administrative procedures he initiated at national level. The complaint also concerned how the EPPO dealt with a request for public access to documents submitted by the complainant.

The Ombudsman found shortcomings in the EPPO’s handling of the complaints in terms of how the EPPO communicated its position to the complainant and the reasons for its conclusion not to take further action. The EPPO addressed this in the course of the inquiry by providing clear and reasonable explanations for its position. The Ombudsman also found that the EPPO did not breach the complainant’s rights when dealing with the complaints.

Regarding the access to documents request, the Ombudsman found that the reasons invoked by the EPPO not to disclose the requested documents do not appear to be in line with the EU legislation on public access to documents. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman found that the decision not to disclose the documents requested by the complainant was reasonable, albeit for a different reason than that relied on by the EPPO.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that no further inquiries are justified.

The case concerned the time taken by the European Commission to deal with an infringement complaint against Italy concerning the working time and leave arrangements for staff of the financial police (Guardia di Finanza) in Italy. The complainant had made an infringement complaint to the Commission about the matter in 2022. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, he considered that the Commission had failed to take a decision on his infringement complaint within a reasonable time.

Based on her inquiry, the Ombudsman found that the Commission provided an adequate justification for the time taken so far. Therefore, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration. However, given the time taken to date, she encouraged the Commission to deal with the case as a priority.

The case concerns how the European Commission is handling an infringement complaint against Ireland concerning the conditions for the transportation of young calves that are still on a milk diet. The complainant considered that the time taken by the Commission to deal with the infringement complaint was not reasonable.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission is following the situation closely. The investigation is ongoing, and there have been continuous and regular communication and meetings between the Commission and the national authorities on the matter.

Therefore, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there had been no maladministration.

The case originally concerned the European Commission’s failure to keep the complainant informed on the state of play of an infringement complaint about the compliance of certain Spanish legislation with EU data protection rules and the e-Commerce Directive.

The Ombudsman requested the Commission to inform the complainant of the status of the complaint, the reasons for the delay in assessing it, and the Commission’s plan of action in this case. As the Commission did not provide sufficiently detailed information to the complainant, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team also met with the Commission representatives and inspected the Commission file to better understand how the Commission was handling the infringement complaint.

The Ombudsman found that, while there was a period of time when the Commission was not active on the file, once the relevant Spanish legislation became fully applicable, it regularly engaged with the national authorities and assessed the case. The Ombudsman also found that, although the Commission did not provide timely information to the complainant, which is regrettable, it provided detailed explanations during this inquiry concerning the time taken to handle the infringement complaint and its status. Moreover, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Spain during the inquiry regarding the first aspect of the infringement complaint.

Therefore, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified.

The case concerned a staff member of the European Central Bank (ECB) who considered that he was harassed by his line manager. He complained about this in early 2021. The ECB launched an administrative inquiry, and at the same time assigned the complainant to another workplace in the ECB for his own protection.

The administrative inquiry took two and half years, and was closed three years after the complainant first asked for help. The administrative inquiry found that the complainant had been harassed, and formally initiated a disciplinary procedure against the line manager.

During the ECB’s follow-up to the outcome of the administrative inquiry, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman. He alleged that there were unreasonable delays in the process.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the ECB finalised the disciplinary procedure and the complainant eventually returned to his main workplace.

The Ombudsman found that there had been unreasonable delays in all phases of the ECB’s handling of the matter, and that the ECB had failed to address important issues in its follow-up. The Ombudsman therefore proposed a solution to the ECB, namely that it apologise, pay compensation and ensure meaningful internal communication to staff about the harassment case.

In its reply to the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, the ECB expressed regret for what had happened. It organised additional internal communication about the harassment case. It did not, however, find that it had the elements necessary for considering financial compensation. The Ombudsman found that the harm that was caused by the ECB’s handling of the complainant’s harassment case had regrettably not been repaired by the ECB’s response to the proposal for a solution. However, as a recommendation reiterating the same points would not appear to be useful, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with suggestions for systemic improvements and again asking the ECB to engage with the complainant to identify the relevant financial consequences of its maladministration.