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 Commission handled an administrative complaint about the decision of the Paymaster Office of the Commission (PMO) not to pay to the complainant certain family allowances retroactively.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission should have been clearer in its communication with the complainant and that how it handled the administrative complaint was not in line with the principles of good administration.

Considering that the Commission has insisted that, under no circumstances, it would pay the allowances to the complainant retroactively, the Ombudsman decides that further inquiries into this complaint are not justified.

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.

The case concerned how an EU delegation dealt with a claim by an apart-hotel company for a compensation payment for a reservation made for one of its staff members for a business trip after the staff member failed to show up for the reservation.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and invited the European External Action Service (EEAS), which has certain responsibilities in relation to the EU delegations, to consider making a compensation payment. In reply, the EEAS agreed to pay an amount equivalent to a two-night stay, which the complainant accepted.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the case on the basis that it had been settled.  

The complainant is a freelance interpreter who raised concerns about how the European Parliament complied with its contractual obligations in relation to the provision of remote interpretation services to the European Parliament during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Ombudsman took the view that the Parliament had provided reasonable explanations for its position and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.