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 decision by the European Research Executive Agency (REA) not to award a ‘seal of excellence’ to a proposal for EU funding under a 2023 call for proposals for the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (MSCA-PF), which is part of the EU’s Horizon Europe programme. REA had refused to award the seal of excellence to the proposal because the applicant was based in the United Kingdom.

The Ombudsman found that REA had provided a reasonable explanation for its decision, and acted in line with the applicable rules. As such, she closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. However, she made a suggestion for improvement to REA that it provide to the complainant, and to other UK-based applicants in the same situation, an explanatory note and/or issue a public statement which clarifies the specific situation of UK-based applicants in the 2023 MSCA-PF calls for proposals, in particular in relation to the seal of excellence.

The case concerned the decision by the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to recover funds paid to a not-for profit organisation for a project funded under the Europe for Citizens programme.

The EACEA rejected the complainant’s request for a project extension, and found ineligible certain costs claimed by the complainant, because they concerned activities that were implemented after the end date of the project or concerned activities with an insufficient number of participants.

In the course of the inquiry, the EACEA acknowledged that there were shortcomings in how it communicated with the complainant regarding the potential extension of the project, and offered to compensate the complainant for this. The Ombudsman welcomed this.

The Ombudsman found that the EACEA’s position on the project extension and on the recovery of funds was reasonable and in line with the applicable rules. The case was therefore closed with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by the EACEA.

On 14 June 2023, a fishing vessel (the Adriana) carrying an estimated 750 migrants capsized and sank in international waters off the coast of Pylos, Greece. In the subsequent search and rescue (SAR) operation, 104 people were rescued and 82 bodies were recovered. The remaining passengers are presumed dead. While there had been numerous previous shipwrecks of boats carrying migrants to the European Union, including a shipwreck in Crotone, Italy, on 26 February 2023 when an estimated 100 people died, the Adriana tragedy is considered to be the deadliest, and provoked international outcry.

The incident led to public concern about the role and responsibilities of the EU in protecting lives in the context of its migration and border policies. Allegations have been made that the actions of the Hellenic Coast Guard (HCG) contributed directly or indirectly to the capsizing. There are different national investigations into the role of the HCG, including an ongoing inquiry by the Greek ombudsman, opened after the HCG decided not to launch its own internal disciplinary investigation.

Given that the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), through its joint operations and surveillance activities, is often involved to some extent in the response to maritime emergencies, it is understandable that public disquiet extends to its role. In response to the Pylos tragedy, the Ombudsman decided to open an own-initiative inquiry.

The inquiry found that Frontex had followed the applicable rules and protocols but demonstrated shortcomings in how Frontex reacts in maritime emergency situations in which it becomes involved, either in the context of joint maritime operations or its separate multipurpose aerial surveillance activities.

These include inadequate guidance on how Frontex units should respond where they detect boats in potential emergency situations in the context of their specific and unique activities, including regarding the issuance of emergency signals. The inquiry also demonstrated the need for greater clarity on roles and responsibilities and, importantly, on the nature of Frontex’s cooperation with national authorities.

The inquiry also showed a failure to ensure Frontex’s fundamental rights monitors are sufficiently involved in decision making on maritime emergencies detected during Frontex’s surveillance activities.

To address these shortcomings, the Ombudsman made a series of suggestions. However, the Ombudsman stressed that these suggestions on specific aspects of Frontex’s work are not sufficient  to fill the large gap left by the absence of proactive SAR in the EU, particularly when combined with repeated allegations about the conduct of authorities in certain Member States.

 To this end, the Ombudsman suggested that, where national authorities are failing to fulfil their SAR obligations adequately, or otherwise involved in fundamental rights violations, and/or where national authorities are constraining the search and rescue role and capacity of Frontex, this should lead the Executive Director to reconsider whether Frontex should continue its activities in that Member State.

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to recover funds from the coordinator of an EU-funded project, carried out with seven other project partners.

Following an external audit, the Commission decided to recover from the complainant, as the coordinator of the project, all ineligible costs identified in the audit report for all project partners concerned.

In the context of the inquiry, the Commission decided to cancel the ‘recovery order’ issued to the complainant and, instead, to recover the relevant funds from each project partner concerned. The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s decision and closed the inquiry with the conclusion that the matter has been settled.

The case concerned the refusal by the EU Delegation to Algeria to pay additional costs incurred by a contractor during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of an ‘amicable settlement procedure’ on the matter, the EU Delegation confirmed that certain costs could be reimbursed to the complainant, but maintained that other costs incurred could not.  

The Ombudsman found that the complainant and the European Commission essentially disagreed on the interpretation of the applicable contractual provisions. In such cases, it is not for the Ombudsman to determine how the contract should be interpreted, but rather for a court. The Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s position was not unreasonable. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with the conclusion that there was no maladministration.