Consultar investigaciones

The case concerned the decision by the European Commission’s Paymaster Office (PMO) to divide benefits derived from the child allowance between two divorced EU staff members. The complainant claimed that she should receive all derived benefits because she bears the majority of the costs for raising the child.

The Ombudsman finds the approach adopted by the PMO to decide on the division of derived benefits reasonable and in line with EU case-law. However, the Ombudsman finds that the PMO gave incoherent explanations to the complainant in its reply to her administrative complaint on the matter. However, with new internal administrative rules having been adopted that cover this area, the Ombudsman trusts that the PMO will ensure consistency in how the rules are applied and clarity in the information it gives to EU staff members. 

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

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) carried out a selection procedure for the position of legal officer and assessed the complainant’s application.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a procedural error or a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s application and therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned how the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessed the complainant’s application in a selection procedure for the position of head of unit. The complainant took issue with how EFSA assessed his application, both initially and following his request that it review its assessment, after which he was awarded a lower score.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a procedural error, or a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s application in the CV screening phase and in the context of the request for review. The Ombudsman considered that EFSA acted in line with its obligations when communicating the results of the selection procedure and the review to the complainant. The Ombudsman also noted that nothing prevents selection boards from reducing the scores awarded to an applicant following the request for review. She therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.