Uurimiste otsing

The case concerned a former staff member of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) whom the EIOPA dismissed due to an irreparable breakdown in trust. This followed a series of unsuccessful attempts by the EIOPA to clarify the complainant’s financial and business affairs.

The Ombudsman’s inquiry focused on whether the EIOPA had examined and handled the conflict of interest situation in line with principles of good administration.

In this case, the complainant’s personal business situation posed obvious risks of apparent, potential and actual conflicts of interest of a particularly serious and unique kind. The Ombudsman concluded that there were serious shortcomings in how the EIOPA initially handled the matter. While this may have contributed to the breakdown of trust, the EIOPA did give the complainant the chance to provide comprehensive information about his external earnings and business affairs. Moreover, as an EU public body, the EIOPA was obliged to investigate fully the complainant’s financial and business affairs when it realised that there was a conflict of interest situation.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of maladministration and pointed to a series of shortcomings.

At the time of the complainant’s recruitment, the conflict of interest issues were not handled in a diligent manner. This was a serious instance of maladministration.

The EIOPA’s subsequent ethics check and launch of the administrative inquiry were steps that were within the EIOPA’s managerial discretion to undertake. However, these processes were not carried out with the requisite focus and rigour.

The Ombudsman noted that, as the EIOPA has since introduced changes to how it works, the issues that arose in this case are unlikely to reoccur. As such, she did not proceed to a recommendation.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the eligibility of a candidate in a selection procedure for French-language lawyer-linguists. EPSO considered that the complainant was not eligible because he did not have the required diplomas. The complainant contested EPSO’s decision, claiming that he did have the required diplomas.

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman found issues with the decision of the selection board to consider the complainant ineligible. She proposed that EPSO ask the selection board to reconsider its position on the eligibility of the complainant for the selection procedure. EPSO agreed to review the candidate’s eligibility and asked the complainant for additional documents. The complainant failed to respond to EPSO’s request. On this basis, EPSO rejected the solution proposal, as it considered that, without these additional documents, it could not review the candidate’s eligibility.

Against this background, the Ombudsman took the view that no further inquiries are justified in this case. She nevertheless made a suggestion to EPSO that, in future selection procedures, selection boards ensure that decisions on the eligibility of candidates are based on a clear understanding of the information provided by candidates in their applications. In case of doubt as to the eligibility of a candidate, the selection board should request additional information from the candidate or seek clarifications from national authorities or other third parties.

The case concerned how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) recruited members of its standing corps from a ‘reserve list’ established in the context of a selection procedure. The complainant took issue with Frontex’s decision to recruit some candidates before the completion of the selection procedure, and with the fact that some candidates on the reserve list were recruited to different types of posts to those set out in the selection notice.

The Ombudsman found issues in how Frontex organised the selection procedure. She proposed that Frontex extend the validity of the reserve list for at least one year and inform all candidates that took part in the selection procedure of the issues faced and the changes applied to the terms of the selection procedure. In its reply to the Ombudsman, Frontex did not address the solution proposed and merely explained the steps taken in its recruitment plan. The Ombudsman understands Frontex’s reply as an implicit rejection of the solution proposed.

The Ombudsman found maladministration in Frontex’s failure to comply with the provisions of the selection notice and to inform all candidates of the changes in the conditions of the selection procedure. As the validity of the reserve list has since expired, no purpose would be served by making a recommendation. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case, pointing out that a finding that an EU body has failed to comply with a selection notice is, for her Office, rare and serious. Moreover, in the course of this inquiry, the Ombudsman gave Frontex the possibility to address the concerns raised on three different occasions. Frontex provided limited and unsatisfactory replies. She will emphasise this in her letter to the new Executive Director about this case. The Ombudsman also set out suggestions to Frontex for the future.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit the complainant to a selection procedure for secretaries due to insufficient professional experience in the field of the competition.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board had examined the information provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the application, and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

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 sustainable agriculture and rural development.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s professional experience and, therefore, closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned information provided by the European Commission about the status of two infringement complaints.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission could have provided more comprehensive information about the status of one of the complaints, notably in relation to the ongoing ‘multiple complaints procedure’ covering some of the issues raised in that complaint. However, it dealt with the complaints in a reasonable manner.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to recover over EUR 420 000 in unused funds from a consultancy that carried out an EU-funded programme on justice reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The EU funds had been deposited in a local bank, which subsequently became insolvent.

The consultancy argued that the Commission had no right to hold it liable for the unused funds that had become unavailable because of the bank’s insolvency. Furthermore, it considered that it had not been given the opportunity to express its views during the audit and recovery procedures and that it had not acted negligently.

The Commission argued that the consultancy had been given the opportunity to express its views but did not provide comments. The Commission further considered that the complainant should take legal action against the bank to get the funds released as part of the liquidation procedure.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into whether the Commission’s decision to recover the unavailable funds from the complainant was reasonable. She was not satisfied that the Commission had acted in accordance with the principles of good administration and proposed as a solution that it reconsider its decision that the complainant bear the risk for the insolvency of the local bank in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The Commission did not agree with the Ombudsman’s assessment but stated that, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, it was ready to give the complainant a new opportunity to provide information that might allow the Commission to open an amicable settlement aimed at partially sharing the economic burden of the lost funds.

The Ombudsman welcomes the Commission’s willingness to look into an amicable solution with a view to sharing the burden of the loss of the funds with the complainant. She considers that the complainant has provided the necessary information.

Thus, the Ombudsman closed the case as further inquiries would not result in a more satisfactory outcome for the complainant. To try to avoid similar situations arising in future, she made three suggestions for improvement.