The complainant filed an ‘opposition proceeding’ against an application for an EU trademark before the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Opposition proceedings enable holders of existing EU trademarks to challenge applications for new EU trademarks in order to protect their rights. At the beginning of the opposition proceeding, and in previous proceedings filed by the complainant, the EUIPO communicated with the complainant by post. During the course of the opposition proceeding, the EUIPO changed its communication policy and decided to move to electronic communications. Because of this, the complainant missed a request for evidence.

The Ombudsman found that the EUIPO’s failure to inform the complainant properly about its decision to communicate electronically constitutes maladministration, because it was inconsistent with the EUIPO’s past practices. Since the opposition proceeding had been closed, the Ombudsman closed the case without making a recommendation.

However, she suggested that the EUIPO informs users about changes in its communication policy through the same channel it used to communicate with them in the past.

The case concerned how the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) dealt with a proposal for funding under the Enhanced European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator Pilot.

The complainant took issue with how EASME evaluated its proposal as well as with the lack of information received on the evaluation and possibilities for review. The complainant was also concerned with the delay by EASME in replying to his request that it review its decision.  

In the course of the inquiry, the European Innovation Council and SME Executive Agency (EISMEA), which succeeded and replaced EASME, explained why there was a delay in the review procedure. The Ombudsman considered that the explanation was reasonable. The Ombudsman also found that EASME had provided sufficient information to the complainant on the evaluation and possibilities for review. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman found that the feedback provided by EASME to the complainant was not sufficient, and did not allow a meaningful review of the evaluation of the proposal. The Ombudsman noted that, in the context of the new EIC Accelerator programme, EISMEA appears to provide more detailed feedback to applicants on the evaluation of their proposals.

The Ombudsman thus considered that no further inquiries were justified in this case and closed the inquiry.

The case concerned the failure by the European External Action Service (EEAS) to reply to a letter concerning a disciplinary investigation that had taken place in 2017 in an EU civilian mission.

The Ombudsman found that the EEAS had repeatedly failed to reply to the complainant’s letters. Even if the EEAS considered that it could not reply on the substance, due to ongoing legal proceedings, it should have replied and explained this to the complainant. The failure to do so was maladministration.

Since, in the context of the inquiry, the EEAS explained why it believes it cannot give a substantive reply to the complainant, the Ombudsman did not make a recommendation to this end. She trusts, however, that the EEAS will take this finding on board going forward.

The case concerned the refusal by the European Parliament to send a decision refusing public access to documents by e-mail.

The Ombudsman found that Parliament’s reply to the complainant was reasonable in the given context, as the complainant had already received the decision by registered post.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there had been no maladministration by Parliament in this case.