Sen jälkeen kun EULEXin syyttäjä ja tiedotusvälineet olivat kiinnittäneet oikeusasiamiehen huomion tiettyihin väitettyihin vakaviin sääntöjenvastaisuuksiin, jotka vaikuttivat Kosovossa toteutettavaan EU:n oikeusvaltio-operaatioon (EULEX), oikeusasiamies päätti käynnistää oma-aloitteisen tutkimuksen sen arvioimiseksi, olivatko Euroopan ulkosuhdehallinto (EUH) ja EULEX tutkineet tai tutkivatko ne näitä väitteitä asianmukaisesti.

Selvittääkseen, mihin toimiin hänen oli ryhdyttävä, oikeusasiamies tutki asiaa koskevan EUH:n/EULEXin asiakirja-aineiston. Tarkastuksessa kävi ilmi, että EULEX oli suorittanut alustavan sisäisen tutkinnan ja palkannut ulkopuolisen syyttäjän tutkimaan sääntöjenvastaisuuksia. Lisäksi EUH oli nimittänyt kokeneen asiantuntijan tarkastelemaan EULEXin toimeksiantoa systeemisestä näkökulmasta keskittyen erityisesti esitettyihin väitteisiin.

Oikeusasiamies totesi, että EULEX ei noudattanut vakiomenettelyään tällaisten väitteiden tutkinnassa. Hän totesi myös, että on tutkittava tapaa, jolla ulkoinen syyttäjä otettiin palvelukseen. Koska EU:n korkean edustajan äskettäin nimittämä asiantuntija on kuitenkin tehnyt selväksi, että nämä kysymykset ovat osa hänen suorittamaansa uudelleentarkastelua, oikeusasiamies katsoi, että hänen osaltaan ei tällä hetkellä tarvita lisätoimia.

The complainant, who is French-Italian bilingual asked Parliament to allow him to take written tests in an internal competition in Italian despite the fact that, according to the competition notice, he should take tests in French, his main language registered as such in Parliament’s relevant database.  Parliament refused that request arguing that it was based solely on personal grounds of expediency. The Ombudsman found no maladministration by Parliament, since its refusal was based on clear and acceptable reasons.  She made two further remarks that Parliament could (i) make it possible for bilingual staff to declare both their languages in annual staff reports as their main languages and (ii) add to the annual staff reports, section "knowledge of languages", a note that the data in this section will serve for all HR purposes in the following year.

The case concerned the allegedly discriminatory character of a selection criterion regarding professional experience acquired or studies pursued in a foreign country indicated in a call for expressions of interest issued by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO).

The complainant, an Italian citizen, had been working for the EU in Ispra, Italy, for three years. He took part in a selection procedure organised by EPSO. One of the questions included in the 'Talent Screener' section of the application form queried whether the candidate had "[p]rofessional experience (or [had pursued] studies) in a foreign country (not your country of origin) of longer than six consecutive months". Candidates were invited to reply to that question in the affirmative or in the negative. Given that the complainant had acquired his relevant experience by working for the EU in his country of origin, he replied to the question in the negative. This led EPSO to eliminate him from the next stage of the procedure. The complainant turned to the European Ombudsman and alleged that the question was discriminatory, since it did not take into account specific circumstances.

The complainant is an Italian association which carried out a project in Armenia, financed through a grant by the EU Delegation to that country. In late 2009, after the project had been completed, the complainant requested the EU Delegation in Armenia to make the final payment. However, the Delegation requested some clarifications from the complainant and subsequently, due to the complexity of the project and suspected irregularities, asked for an audit. The complainant turned to the European Ombudsman in August 2012, complaining that it took the Delegation nearly two years to make the final payment after the complainant submitted its payment request. The complainant claimed that the Delegation should reimburse it the costs it had incurred while awaiting the outstanding payment.

The Ombudsman was not convinced that the Delegation's decision to ask for further information and, subsequently, to commission an audit, was unreasonable. While it is true that the audit report concluded that the eligible costs incurred amounted to 99.77% of the declared costs, the report also identified some shortcomings in the implementation of the project. Since there was nothing to suggest an excessive delay on the Delegation's part, she considered the complainant's allegation to be unfounded. Consequently, the Ombudsman closed the case with a finding of no maladministration. As regards certain procedural issues raised by the complainant, the Ombudsman found no grounds for further inquiries.