¿Tiene una reclamación contra una institución u órgano de la UE?

Consultar investigaciones

Caso
Límites de fecha
Palabras clave
O pruebe palabras clave antiguas (anteriores a 2016)

Mostrando 1 - 20 de 70 resultados

Decision in case 616/2020/DL on how the European Commission dealt with a contractor that had not paid its consultants

Miércoles | 19 mayo 2021

The complainant worked as an expert for an external contractor to the EU Delegation to Ghana. Not having been paid for her work, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman, claiming that the EU Delegation had failed to ensure that the external contractor respects its obligations towards the experts.

The Ombudsman found that both the EU Delegation and the European Commission had acted in accordance with the applicable rules when withholding some payments under the contract. She also found that they had taken appropriate action vis-a-vis the contractor to try to resolve the situation that affected the complainant. The Ombudsman considers that the Commission has adequate mechanisms in place to monitor contractors, and she trusts the Commission will use these mechanisms to monitor the situation and to take action within its remit if needed.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 1498/2019/NH on the European Parliament not sending its reply to an access to documents request by e-mail

Jueves | 28 mayo 2020

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.

Decisión en el asunto 1484/2019/UNK relativo a la tramitación, por parte de la Comisión Europea, de una solicitud de pleno acceso público a las versiones preliminares de un artículo acerca de la Directiva sobre derechos de autor publicado en el sitio web de la Comisión

Lunes | 02 diciembre 2019

El asunto se refería a la decisión de la Comisión Europea de expurgar los nombres de los miembros del personal de la Comisión de un documento antes de conceder al reclamante acceso público al mismo.

La Defensora del Pueblo concluyó que estaba justificado que la Comisión expurgara dichos nombres. En consecuencia, dio por terminada la investigación con la conclusión de que no se había producido mala administración.

Decisión en el asunto 552/2018/MIG relativo a la negativa de la Comisión Europea a conceder acceso público a los documentos relativos a la Ley sobre Utilización de la Red de Alemania

Miércoles | 20 noviembre 2019

El asunto se refería a una solicitud de acceso público a documentación conservada por la Comisión Europea y relativa a la Ley sobre Utilización de la Red de Alemania, una ley nacional orientada a combatir las noticias falsas en las redes sociales.

La Defensora del Pueblo Europeo propuso como solución a la Comisión que volviera a considerar su negativa (parcial) a conceder acceso público a la documentación. La Comisión no respondió dentro del plazo especificado por la Defensora del Pueblo Europeo. En consecuencia, la Defensora del Pueblo Europeo formuló una recomendación a la Comisión.

La Comisión respondió que no aceptaba la recomendación de la Defensora del Pueblo Europeo.

La Defensora del Pueblo Europeo lamenta que la Comisión no hubiera seguido su recomendación. La Defensora del Pueblo Europeo reafirma su conclusión de mala administración.

Decision in case 1731/2018/FP on the refusal by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency to grant public access to the documents submitted by a public undertaking for a funding approval in the context of a call for proposals by the Connecting Europe Facility

Viernes | 04 octubre 2019

The case concerned the refusal by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) to grant public access to documents submitted by a national cybersecurity authority that was seeking funding from INEA.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and proposed that INEA should partially disclose the requested documents, redacting only information that it considers to be genuinely commercially sensitive or personal data.

INEA rejected the Ombudsman’s proposal, arguing that most of the information that could be disclosed was already in the public domain and the proposed partial disclosure would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on INEA. It also said that it accepted the arguments of the national cybersecurity authority regarding the likely damage disclosure would cause to its commercial interests.

The Ombudsman found INEA’s refusal to grant even partial access to the requested documents to be maladministration and recommended that INEA partially disclose the relevant Grant application.

INEA rejected the Ombudsman’s recommendation. Consequently, the Ombudsman now closes the case, confirming her finding of maladministration.