Consultar investigaciones

El denunciante presentó un «procedimiento de oposición» contra una solicitud de marca de la Unión ante la Oficina de Propiedad Intelectual de la Unión Europea (EUIPO). Los procedimientos de oposición permiten a los titulares de marcas de la Unión existentes impugnar las solicitudes de nuevas marcas de la Unión con el fin de proteger sus derechos. Al inicio del procedimiento de oposición, y en procedimientos anteriores promovidos por el denunciante, la EUIPO se comunicó con el denunciante por correo postal. Durante el procedimiento de oposición, la EUIPO cambió su política de comunicación y decidió pasarse a las comunicaciones electrónicas. Por ello, el denunciante no tuvo conocimiento de una solicitud de pruebas.

El Defensor del Pueblo consideró que el hecho de que la EUIPO no informara adecuadamente al denunciante de su decisión de comunicarse por vía electrónica constituye un caso de mala administración, ya que era incompatible con las prácticas anteriores de la EUIPO. Teniendo en cuenta que el procedimiento de oposición se había cerrado, el Defensor del Pueblo archivó el asunto sin formular una recomendación.

Sin embargo, sugirió que la EUIPO informase a los usuarios sobre los cambios en su política de comunicación a través del mismo canal que utilizó para comunicarse con ellos en el pasado.

The case concerned the time taken by the European Commission to deal with an appeal concerning its decision to apply a ‘medical reserve’ on a newly recruited staff member.

The Ombudsman wrote to the Commission reminding it that principles of good administration require EU institutions to take decisions within a reasonable time frame and that this is particularly important when the decision is related to the health of the person concerned and to social security cover.

Following updates from the Commission and the complainant showing that the Commission took a final decision on the appeal in March 2022, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that the substantive matter has been settled. The Ombudsman expects the Commission in future to handle similar procedures in a timely manner.

 

The case was about how the European Parliament dealt with two traineeship applications from a person who requested special arrangements for his applications due to dyslexia.

After first having rejected the complainant’s application, Parliament decided to interview him and offered him a traineeship. As the complainant had a long absence from his traineeship for medical reasons, Parliament offered him the possibility to apply again. However, Parliament rejected the complainant’s new application.

The complainant took issue with how Parliament handled his traineeship applications and with how it informed him that he could reapply for a traineeship.

The Ombudsman finds that Parliament should have been clearer in its communication with the complainant regarding the possibility to apply for a second traineeship. However, she finds no maladministration in how Parliament dealt with the complainant’s traineeship applications. Similarly, the fact that Parliament deals with requests for special arrangements made by traineeship candidates on a case-by-case basis is a reasonable approach.

The Ombudsman makes a suggestion for improvement to Parliament regarding how it informs traineeship candidates of the possibility to request special assistance in the context of the application and selection procedure and of how they should make such a request.