Consultar investigaciones

The case concerned the use of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI funds) for the construction of institutional care facilities for persons with disabilities in Hungary and Portugal. The complainant considered that the European Commission should have taken action on these projects, as it believed them to be at odds with the EU’s obligations to ensure people with disabilities are supported to live independently and to be included in the community.

The Ombudsman already had occasion, in the course of an earlier inquiry, to set out her views on the use of ESI funds on institutions rather than to promote independent living. The Ombudsman was encouraged by the Commission’s follow-up to her suggestions in that case, received in the course of this inquiry, and in particular the greater ambition it is showing for the 2021-27 programming period.

In this case, the Ombudsman finds that, as regards the first phase of the ‘deinstitutionalisation’ process in Hungary, the Commission has not acted in a sufficiently timely manner. Due to the lessons learnt in that phase, however, the Commission has shown greater caution as regards the use of ESI funds to continue the deinstitutionalisation process in that Member State. In the case of Portugal, the Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will act upon the findings and recommendations of the UN and the upcoming expert report in an effective manner.

On this basis, the Ombudsman closes the inquiry. She will now examine with the members of the European Network of Ombudsmen the need for further work in this area, in particular in light of the problems encountered in institutional care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also sets out three suggestions for improvement to address the issues identified in this case.  

The complainant is a visually impaired candidate who participated in a selection procedure for EU civil servants organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO). She argued that, in a test, she was not given the special accommodation promised to her, which was a manual timer.

It was not possible to establish what type of device EPSO had given the complainant and whether the complainant had received instructions on how to use it. However, EPSO informed the Ombudsman that it was working on improving the information on special accommodation measures that it makes available to candidates.   

The Ombudsman closed the case with a suggestion to EPSO that it informs her of the updated information on special accommodation measures. The Ombudsman also suggested that candidates who are promised special measures be clearly informed, beforehand and in writing, about how they should proceed if they consider that there is a problem with these measures on the spot.

The case concerned a 2017 grant procedure organised by the European Commission under the Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme. The complainant is the European Network on Independent Living (‘ENIL’), a Europe-wide network of people with disabilities, who applied for a grant under this procedure.

The Commission assessed ENIL’s application and decided not to recommend it for funding. The complainant alleged that the Commission had not evaluated its application fairly. The complainant also argued there was a lack of transparency preventing it from establishing in what respect its application for funding failed to meet the different evaluation criteria.

The Ombudsman inspected documents in the Commission’s file on the grant procedure and found no evidence of unfair treatment of the complainant. The Ombudsman concluded that the Commission’s reasoning and scoring in the assessment of the proposals was plausible and consistent.

The Ombudsman also assessed whether the Commission had provided the complainant with enough information about why its proposal was rejected. The Ombudsman found that the Commission had informed the complainant about why its bid was unsuccessful, including by meeting the complainant after the rejection letter had been sent out.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding no maladministration. She noted, however, that the Commission should give an entity seeking funding a full copy of the Commission’s overall assessment of the proposal, on request, including the marks awarded for each criterion and an explanation as regards why that mark was awarded.

The case concerned the European Parliament’s decision to reject the request from a staff member with a disability to be allowed to work remotely to accommodate her special needs. Parliament argued that the complainant does not need to work remotely to be able to carry out the essential tasks of her job.

Based on her inquiry, the Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration by Parliament.  

This case against the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) concerned the rescheduling of the ‘computer-based tests’ for a candidate with a disability who took part in a selection procedure for EU civil servants. The complainant contended that EPSO did not communicate clearly to him how he could reschedule his test appointment. He further argued that EPSO was wrong to refuse to reschedule an appointment he missed due to illness.

In the course of the inquiry, EPSO informed the Ombudsman that, prior to the test, all candidates can make requests online to reschedule. In this case, EPSO assisted the complainant by directly asking the contractor carrying out the tests to reschedule his appointment twice.

The Ombudsman also found that EPSO was justified in refusing to reschedule the test that the complainant missed, as he had not provided a medical certificate proving that he was unable to attend due to illness. The Ombudsman therefore concluded that there was no maladministration by EPSO.

El asunto se refería a dos reclamaciones de candidatos con discapacidad visual que participaron en los procesos de selección para la contratación de funcionarios de la UE, organizados por la Oficina Europea de Selección de Personal (EPSO, por sus siglas en inglés). Los reclamantes experimentaron problemas con los formularios de candidatura en línea, que no eran totalmente accesibles para usuarios de «lectores de pantalla». Los reclamantes también consideraron que la EPSO había sido incapaz de atender sus necesidades especiales durante las pruebas por ordenador, ya que no pudieron realizar las pruebas de forma independiente.

La Defensora del Pueblo Europeo concluyó que las acciones de la EPSO eran constitutivas de mala administración. Recomendó que la EPSO hiciera totalmente accesibles sus formularios de candidatura en línea para candidatos con discapacidad visual lo antes posible. También recomendó que la EPSO estableciera un calendario detallado para garantizar la facilitación de tecnologías de apoyo a los candidatos durante las pruebas por ordenador realizadas en los centros de pruebas de todo el mundo. Por último, recomendó que la EPSO informase de forma explícita a los candidatos que actualmente disponen de algunas medidas para atender necesidades especiales, como tecnologías de apoyo, pero solo en fases específicas de los procesos de selección.

La Defensora del Pueblo Europeo se muestra satisfecha porque la EPSO, en respuesta a sus recomendaciones, haya actualizado la información facilitada a los candidatos sobre las medidas para atender sus necesidades especiales. También ve con buenos ojos la propuesta de la EPSO para permitir que los candidatos con discapacidad visual realicen las pruebas por ordenador a distancia utilizando tecnologías de acceso remoto. No obstante, la Defensora del Pueblo Europeo no está totalmente satisfecha con el calendario propuesto por la EPSO para hacer que su formulario de candidatura en línea sea totalmente accesible. Por tanto, cierra la investigación reiterando esta recomendación a la EPSO y considera solucionadas las demás cuestiones.

The case concerned allegedly discriminatory treatment by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in its staff selection procedures. The complainant argued that she had not been selected for a number of jobs due to her disability.

While the Ombudsman has drawn attention in this case to a number of important and relevant provisions from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, she found nothing to suggest that the complainant’s applications had been rejected because of her disability. In the course of the inquiry, it became clear that the complainant had not been aware that a selection test that she had previously taken had remained valid for some time and excluded her from subsequent staff selection procedures. At that point in time, the EIB was not informing applicants of this practice. The Ombudsman welcomes the fact that the EIB is now giving all applicants very clear information about the validity of its staff selection tests.

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