Kas teil on kaebus ELi institutsiooni või asutuse kohta?

Uurimiste otsing

Teksti otsing

Dokumendi tüüp

Asjassepuutuvad institutsioonid

Kokkuleppe liik

Juhtumi number

Keel

Kuupäevade vahemik

Võtmesõnad

Huvide konflikti küsimuste mittenõuetekohane käsitlemine

Või proovi varasemaid märksõnu (enne 2016. aastat)

Kuvatakse 1–20 kokku 179 tulemusest

Decision of the European Ombudsman in joint inquiry 853/2020/KR on the European Commission’s decision to award a contract to BlackRock Investment Management to carry out a study on integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) objectives into EU banking rules

Esmaspäev | 23 november 2020

The case concerns the European Commission's decision to award to BlackRock Investment Management a contract to carry out a study on integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) objectives into EU banking rules. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry after receiving complaints from MEPs and a coalition of civil society organisations. The inquiry assessed how the Commission evaluated the company’s offer in the context of the call for tenders for carrying out the study.

The Ombudsman found that the company’s offer gave rise to concerns. First, if a bidder has a direct or indirect financial interest in developments in a market, because it invests in that market, or manages investments in that market, there is a clear risk that those interests may influence the outcome of its work in its own favour. This applies to the company in question. Second, because of the weighting applied by the Commission in its evaluation, the low price the company offered optimised its chances of securing the contract. Winning the contract may enable the company to gain insights and assert influence over a growing investment area of major and increasing relevance to its clients and therefore to the company itself.

The Ombudsman agrees that there are legitimate concerns around the risk of conflicts of interest that could negatively impact the performance of the contract as the company manifestly has an interest in the development of future EU regulation that will impact on itself and on its clients. She concluded that the Commission should have been more rigorous, and brought a wider perspective to bear, as it moved to verify, in compliance with the rules, that the company was not subject to a conflict of interest that may negatively affect the company’s ability to execute the contract. However, not doing so does not meet the threshold of maladministration, given the limitations of EU rules on awarding contracts in such situations on the Commission staff awarding the contract.

The Ombudsman suggests that the Commission updates its guidelines for public procurement procedures for policy-related service contracts, giving clarity to staff as to when to exclude bidders due to conflicts of interest that may negatively affect the performance of the contract. The Ombudsman also suggests the Commission reflect on whether a specific update to the applicable rules is also required to make them more relevant to the EU’s current policy ambitions. The EU is planning a period of unprecedented levels of spending and investment, which will necessarily involve significant linkages with the private sector.

This Decision will also be forwarded to EU legislators. It is a matter for the legislators to agree the legal underpinning of the ‘green transition’ including the appropriate manner in which its development and rollout is influenced.

Decision in case 2168/2019/KR on the European Banking Authority’s decision to approve the request from its Executive Director to become CEO of a financial lobby group

Kolmapäev | 18 november 2020

The case concerned the decision of the European Banking Authority (EBA) to allow its Executive Director to take up a position as CEO of a lobby group.

The Ombudsman found two instances of maladministration and made three recommendations to avoid similar issues arising in future.

First, the EBA should, where necessary, invoke the option of forbidding its senior staff from taking up certain positions after their term-of-office. Any such prohibition should be time-limited, for example, for two years.

Second, the EBA should set out criteria for when it will forbid such moves in future so as to give clarity to senior staff. Applicants for senior EBA posts should be informed of the criteria when they apply.

Third, the EBA should put in place internal procedures so that once it is known that a member of its staff is moving to another job, their access to confidential information is cut off with immediate effect.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry after the EBA accepted her recommendations and adopted measures to implement them.

The Ombudsman is confident that the policies the EBA has introduced will help it avoid damaging revolving door moves in the future. Other EU institutions and agencies should draw on these new EBA safeguards when revising their own rules.

 

Decision in case 171/2019/NH on how the European External Action Service dealt with a request for whistleblower protection and a recruitment procedure in an EU mission

Esmaspäev | 19 oktoober 2020

The complainant was a staff member in an EU civilian mission who reported what he considered to be corrupt practices at the European External Action Service (EEAS). He asked the EEAS to protect him as a whistleblower, but the EEAS did not reply. The complainant became concerned that the EEAS advertised his post and carried out the selection procedure as a measure of retaliation against him. He appealed against the outcome of the selection procedure but the EEAS did not reply.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the EEAS replied to the complainant’s appeal and his request for whistleblower protection.

The Ombudsman also inquired into the complainant’s concern about retaliation and found no evidence of retaliation regarding the way in which the EEAS had carried out the selection procedure. She thus closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 1491/2018/VB on the alleged failure by the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking to protect the complainant’s patent rights in the context of a project financed under the Horizon 2020 programme

Kolmapäev | 13 mai 2020

The case concerned a project organised by the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CS2JU) and funded under the EU Research and Innovation programme ‘Horizon 2020’. The complainant claimed that a device developed in the context of the project breached his intellectual property rights.

The Ombudsman finds that the CS2JU has dealt with the complainant’s concerns in a reasonable manner and that it provided him with the appropriate advice to contact the competent national authorities.

The Ombudsman closes the inquiry with the finding that CS2JU’s handling of the complainant’s concerns about the alleged infringement of his intellectual property rights does not reveal maladministration and that no further inquiries into the other aspects of the complaint are justified.

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 2168/2019/KR on how the European Banking Authority handled the move of its former Executive Director to become CEO of a financial industry lobby

Neljapäev | 07 mai 2020

The Ombudsman received a complaint about the decision of the European Banking Authority (EBA) to allow its Executive Director to take up a position as CEO of an association representing banks, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME).

The Ombudsman conducted an inquiry, inspected the relevant EBA documents and found maladministration, first, in that the EBA should have forbidden the job move. While the EBA adopted extensive restrictions, these are not sufficient when measured against the risks involved. The Ombudsman considers that if this move does not justify the application of the option, set out in the Staff Regulations, to forbid a staff member accepting a job offer, no move would.

Second, there was maladministration in that the EBA did not, once notified of the planned move, immediately withdraw its Executive Director’s access to confidential information.

The Ombudsman issues three recommendations to the EBA, which should (i) where necessary in future, invoke the option of forbidding its senior staff from taking up certain positions after their term-of-office. Any such prohibition should be time-limited, for example, for two years; (ii) set out criteria for when it will forbid such moves in future so as to give clarity to senior staff. Applicants for senior EBA posts should be informed of the criteria when they apply; and (iii) put in place internal procedures so that once it is known that a member of its staff is moving to another job, their access to confidential information is cut off with immediate effect.

The EBA should reply to these recommendations within three months.