Hae tutkimuksia

The case concerned the alleged failure of the European Investment Bank (EIB) Complaints Mechanism to handle a complaint in a timely manner. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the delay was justified due to the complexity of the subject matter of the complaint. The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration by the EIB.

Tutkimusta suorittaessaan oikeusasiamies otti huomioon sekä komission velvollisuuden varmistaa moitteeton varainhoito erityisesti välttämällä sääntöjenvastaiset ja virheelliset maksut että sopimuskumppanien ja tuensaajien perusoikeuden hyvään hallintoon, johon kuuluu tuensaajien maksupyyntöjen käsittely kohtuullisen ajan kuluessa.

Oikeusasiamies pyysi tietoa tapahtuneiden maksuviivästysten määrästä ja osuudesta suhteessa kaikkiin maksuihin, maksuviivästysten pituudesta, viivästyneistä summista ja tapauksista, joissa maksuviivästyksistä oli maksettu korkoa. Oikeusasiamies teki tutkimuksia myös paikalla ymmärtääkseen paremmin, miten maksuprosessi toimii käytännössä.

Oikeusasiamies pani merkille, että viivästyneiden maksujen kokonaisosuus oli kasvanut vuodesta 2013 lähinnä kahdesta syystä. Ensinnäkin 1. tammikuuta 2013 voimaan tulleessa nykyisessä varainhoitoasetuksessa säädetään tiukemmista maksumääräajoista. Toiseksi EU:n budjettivallankäyttäjät (eli parlamentti ja neuvosto) rajoittivat maksumäärärahojen määrää vuonna 2014. Maksumäärärahat annetaan toimielimille laskujen maksua varten vuoden aikana.

Oikeusasiamies on tyytyväinen siihen, että komissio onnistui vähentämään maksuviivästysten lukumäärää ja suuruutta vuonna 2015 sen jälkeen, kun viivästykset olivat olleet huipussaan vuonna 2014. Hän myöntää, että maksumäärärahojen vaje oli poikkeuksellinen tekijä, johon komissio ei voinut vaikuttaa. Hän huomauttaa lisäksi, että maksuviivästysten keskiarvojen nousu vuodesta 2013 lähtien ei tarkoita sitä, että komission toiminta tässä asiassa olisi varsinaisesti heikentynyt. Samalla oikeusasiamies korostaa, että komission on ponnisteltava pystyäkseen täyttämään nykyisessä varainhoitoasetuksessa käyttöön otetut tiukemmat määräajat.

Oikeusasiamiehen tutkimuksissa kävi ilmi, että komissio seuraa tarkkaan suoritustaan tässä asiassa ja on laatinut monia hyviä käytäntöjä. Oikeusasiamies on kuitenkin huolissaan siitä, että osa komission ilmoittamista viimeaikaisista toimenpiteistä oli otettu esille jo vuonna 2010 oikeusasiamiehen aiemman tutkimuksen yhteydessä käynnistetyn kuulemisen jälkeen.

Oikeusasiamies kehottaakin komissiota tehostamaan toimiaan rahoituksen ja varsinaisen toiminnan tarkastusten välisessä koordinoinnissa, verkkotyökalujen kehittämisessä, henkilöstön vaihtuvuuden mahdollisimman tehokkaassa hallinnassa, maksujen keskeytyksen hallinnassa ja laskujen ajallaan kirjaamisessa. Hän esittää näiden osalta muutamia suosituksia.

The case concerned the failure by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises (EASME) to reply to the complainant’s request for review following a recruitment procedure for a contract agent.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and asked EASME to reply to the complainant and address her concerns about her exclusion from the ‘reserve list’ of successful candidates. In its reply, EASME apologised for what it described as “an unfortunate event”, which should not have happened, and explained why the complainant had not been included in the reserve list.

The Ombudsman found EASME’s explanations about the complainant’s exclusion convincing. However, she regretted the fact that it had taken EASME one year to reply to the complainant’s request for review, and that it had done so only after the Ombudsman’s intervention. The Ombudsman encouraged EASME to take steps to ensure that similar incidents do not occur in the future.

The case concerned the failure by the European Commission to reply to the complainant’s request for a legal review of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency’s decision to reject his project from EU funding under the Erasmus+ programme. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission had already replied to the complainant. She therefore considered this part of the complaint as settled by the institution. She also examined the substance of the Commission’s reply and found it comprehensive and reasonable. She therefore decided that there was no maladministration.

The case concerned the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to allow the complainant to submit a second application in the context of a call for expressions of interest which contained no specific deadline for the submission of applications. The complainant sought to submit a second application after failing to pass the test linked to his initial application under the same selection procedure. The complainant argued that EPSO failed to provide adequate replies to his letters concerning (i) the legal basis for not allowing candidates to reapply in selection procedures without any specific closing dates; and (ii) the conditions, including the behaviour of staff, at the test centre in Spain.

In its response, EPSO referred to the conditions set out in the call for expressions of interest as the legal basis for its actions. It also explained that it had investigated the matter concerning the behaviour of the staff at the test centre.

The Ombudsman found EPSO’s explanation to be reasonable and adequate, so the case was closed.

The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s messages concerning its difficulties with the submission of a grant proposal. Due to technical problems, the complainant was not able to apply through the Commission’s system PRIAMOS. Instead, it submitted its proposal by e-mail, which remained unanswered.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and asked the Commission to reply. In its reply, the Commission apologised for not having replied earlier. It said that it could not accept the complainant’s e-mail application because the system had functioned properly and the Commission had not been able to identify any attempts by the complainant to send the proposal via PRIAMOS before the deadline.

The case concerned EPSO’s actions following a computer-server crash during a test and EPSO's handling of the complainant's requests for review and for access to documents.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that EPSO (i) did not deal properly with the situation arising from the computer crash, (ii) failed to deal properly with the complainant's request for review and (iii) failed to handle properly the complainant's request for access to documents. Therefore, the Ombudsman made three recommendations to EPSO.

EPSO accepted the Ombudsman's first recommendation regarding how it should deal with technical problems during a computer-based test. The second recommendation was that EPSO should provide the complainant with a detailed explanation of how it had dealt with his request for a review. The Ombudsman did not find EPSO's response on this to be convincing and that EPSO’s handling of the request for a review constituted maladministration. Finally, EPSO did not accept the Ombudsman's third recommendation regarding the provision of access to documents. The Ombudsman found that EPSO’s failure to provide further documents also constituted maladministration. In addition to two findings of maladministration, the Ombudsman also made a suggestion to EPSO on how it could improve its contact service for candidates.  

This case concerned the European Commission's handling of information submitted by the complainant, alleging three cases of unlawful State aid granted to Spanish football clubs. The complainant argued that the Commission had failed to decide within a reasonable time whether it should open a formal investigation into the allegedly illegal State aid. Since, in the complainant's view, the Commission was failing to take action, the complainant made a request for access to some documents related to two of these cases. The Commission refused to give access on grounds of the protection of the purpose of the investigations.

The case concerned delays encountered in the authorisation of twenty applications for genetically modified food and feed. The complainants informed the Commission of their concerns on several occasions. In their view, the Commission's explanations and the persistent delays were unacceptable. Therefore, the complainants turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the delays affecting the twenty applications were not justified. In the course of the inquiry, the Commission dealt with all the pending applications. The Ombudsman concluded, however, that the delays reflected a systemic problem rather than being the result of matters specific to the particular authorisation applications. In closing the inquiry, the Ombudsman found that the delays constituted maladministration on the part of the Commission.