Consultar investigaciones

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the professional experience of a candidate in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of international cooperation.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board had assessed the complainant’s application in line with the selection criteria. The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest that the selection board made a manifest error in assessing the complainant’s qualifications, and therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the decision by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) not to select the complainant as an officer in its Standing Corps following an interview as part of a selection procedure. The complainant argued that his application had received unjustifiably low scores. In addition, the complainant was concerned that Frontex did not allow him to request a review of the decision.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board set up by Frontex had followed the vacancy notice when scoring the complainant’s application. Frontex confirmed that it had processed the complainant’s request for review, but acknowledged that the information provided to the complainant may not have been clear. In the course of the inquiry, Frontex implemented changes in its practices, which the Ombudsman welcomed.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by Frontex.

El asunto afectaba a la decisión de la Oficina Europea de Lucha contra el Fraude (OLAF) de no iniciar una investigación sobre las alegaciones de la reclamante de fraude en la asignación de fondos de la UE al Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos de Chile. La investigación cubría también la tramitación por la OLAF de la consiguiente petición de la reclamante de información sobre cómo ponerse en contacto con la Oficina de la Defensora del Pueblo Europea.

La Defensora del Pueblo investigó el asunto sin hallar ningún elemento que apuntara a errores manifiestos en la conclusión de la OLAF de que las alegaciones de la reclamante no justificaban el inicio de una investigación.

No obstante, la OLAF podría haber dado pruebas de una mayor diligencia en su tramitación de la petición de información de la reclamante. La Defensora del Pueblo sugiere una mejora a este respecto.

The case concerned how the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) calculated the reimbursement of staff expenses of the recipient of a grant under the Lifelong Learning Programme. The complainant questioned, in particular, the number of working days that the EACEA decided to take into account for reimbursement, following a recalculation of the applicable daily rate.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found the EACEA’s recalculation to be reasonable.

The Ombudsman also found that the EACEA had dealt with the complainant’s request that it review its initial decision in line with its internal rules of procedure. In the absence of a concrete argument questioning the impartial character of the review process and given that the complainant’s request resulted in the EACEA recognising additional expenses, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.