Mostrando 1 - 20 de 111 resultados
Modo en que la Comisión Europea intentó recuperar los gastos tras la auditoría de un proyecto financiado por la UE sobre la rehabilitación de las víctimas de torturas
Lunes | 24 octubre 2022
Forma en la que la Comisión Europea llevó a cabo un procedimiento de contratación pública de apoyo al Marco de Inversión para los Balcanes Occidentales
Lunes | 19 septiembre 2022
Cómo la Comisión Europea (Delegación en Argelia) tramitó la solicitud de un contratista en relación con el reembolso de los gastos suplementarios en que incurrió debido a la pandemia de COVID-19
Lunes | 04 julio 2022
Decisión de la Comisión Europea de recuperar la financiación concedida por la UE en virtud de un contrato para la prestación de asistencia técnica en un tercer país
Viernes | 01 julio 2022
Decision on how the EU Monitoring Mission in Georgia dealt with issues related to the performance evaluation report of a former staff member (case 1041/2021/OAM)
Viernes | 24 junio 2022
This decision is not published as there is a risk that the complainant may be identified from the specific circumstances of the case.
Decisión del Parlamento Europeo de modificar la naturaleza del contrato en virtud del cual se contrató a un intérprete de conferencia (reclamación 232/2022/FA)
Martes | 01 marzo 2022
Omisión de respuesta por parte de la Oficina de Propiedad Intelectual de la Unión Europea (EUIPO) a una solicitud de revisión de su decisión de no reembolsar costes relacionados con la propiedad intelectual en el marco del Fondo para Pymes
Miércoles | 01 diciembre 2021
Decisión de la Comisión Europea de considerar no subvencionables determinados costes declarados en el contexto de un contrato de subvención con una ONG
Jueves | 28 octubre 2021
Decision on how the European Commission monitored a school competition in Italy that it sponsors (case 1724/2021/FA)
Martes | 26 octubre 2021
Decision on the European Commission’s decision to recover grants paid under EU funded projects carried out by a national police authority (case 1733/2020/LM)
Lunes | 11 octubre 2021
The complainant, a national police force, received two grants from the European Commission for projects to fight transnational crime, which it carried out successfully. Following audits of the projects, the Commission found that a big part of the costs were ineligible mainly due to the lack of supporting documents. The Commission therefore decided to recover a considerable part of the grants. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman arguing that the decision was disproportionate and that the Commission had not shown flexibility. The complainant considered that the Commission should have allowed it more time to send additional supporting documents and that it should have done another audit.
The Ombudsman found that it was reasonable for the Commission to conclude that the complainant had violated its contractual obligations under the ‘grant agreement’. The Commission had acted in accordance with EU financial rules and given the complainant ample opportunity to provide comments and submit additional supporting documents as proof of the costs it claimed. The Commission had also shown flexibility by agreeing to review supporting documents submitted late. The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.
Cómo una misión de la UE abordó cuestiones relacionadas con el informe de evaluación del rendimiento de un miembro del personal
Viernes | 30 julio 2021
Decision concerning the European Commission´s non-extension of a project funded under the Erasmus+ programme (case 626/2021/AMF)
Lunes | 26 julio 2021
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.
Decisión de la Comisión Europea de no ampliar la duración de un proyecto financiado en virtud del programa Erasmus+, pese a las extraordinarias circunstancias provocadas por la pandemia de COVID-19
Miércoles | 14 abril 2021
Decision of the European Ombudsman in case OI/1/2020/LM on the European External Action Service´s decision (EEAS) not to pay a severance grant to a retired staff member of the EU Delegation to Algeria
Martes | 02 febrero 2021
The complaint concerned the European External Action Service’s (EEAS) decision not to pay a severance grant to a locally hired staff member in the EU Delegation to Algeria. The Delegation had supported paying the grant, arguing that this had been the practice based on an administrative note.
The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the staff member had no ‘legitimate expectation’, in the legal sense, to receive a severance grant. She thus closed the case with a finding of no-maladministration. The Ombudsman pointed out, however, that it was regrettable that the EEAS had failed to ensure clear and consistent communication to staff about the rules applying to the individuals in question. This lack of clarity left the staff member concerned with an incorrect understanding of the situation. As the EEAS is phasing out the relevant staff category, the Ombudsman will not pursue this matter. She trusts, however, that the EEAS will, in the meantime, ensure that the employment conditions applicable to the individuals in question are clarified.
Decision of the European Ombudsman in the case 1369/2020/JN on the European Commission´s decision to reject costs claimed in an EU funded project in the area of urban traffic
Jueves | 03 diciembre 2020
Decisión de la Comisión Europea de incluir al denunciante en el Sistema de Detección Precoz y Exclusión (EDES)
Viernes | 27 noviembre 2020
Decision in case 154/2020/DL on how the Research Executive Agency dealt with a recruitment procedure carried out in the context of an EU-funded project under the Horizon 2020 programme
Lunes | 09 noviembre 2020
The case concerned a recruitment procedure organised by the University of Ljubljana as part of an EU-funded project, under the Horizon 2020 programme. The complainant claimed that irregularities occurred in the recruitment procedure, and reported this to the Research Executive Agency (REA), which is responsible for the implementation of the programme. Dissatisfied with how REA dealt with his complaint, he turned to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman found that REA investigated the issue and advised the university on steps to take to address certain shortcomings it had identified. The university followed REA’s advice.
The Ombudsman therefore found that REA dealt appropriately with the matter and closed the case, finding no maladministration.
Decision of the European Ombudsman in case 674/2020/KT on how the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) dealt with a procurement procedure for staff accommodation in Greece
Viernes | 23 octubre 2020
Decision in case 2218/2019/MDC on the Research Executive Agency’s decision to consider ineligible certain costs claimed by a partner in an EU-funded project on the interoperability of unmanned vehicles (DARIUS)
Miércoles | 16 septiembre 2020
The case concerned the decision of the Research Executive Agency (REA) to consider ineligible certain costs claimed in the context of a project that was co-funded by the EU: the DARIUS project on the interoperability of unmanned vehicles in search and rescue operations.
The complainant considered that the REA had acted in a contradictory and inconsistent manner, and should not have deemed the costs ineligible. It raised various concerns about the findings of the audit on which that decision was based .
The Ombudsman found that the REA acted reasonably and in line with the grant agreement. She therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.