Hae tutkimuksia

Saatuaan tiedon Kosovossa toteutettavaan EU:n oikeusvaltio-operaatioon (EULEX) liittyvistä väitetyistä vakavista sääntöjenvastaisuuksista eräältä operaatiossa toimivalta syyttäjältä ja tiedotusvälineiltä oikeusasiamies päätti käynnistää oma-aloitteisen tutkimuksen arvioidakseen, ovatko Euroopan ulkosuhdehallinto (EUH) ja EULEX tutkineet nämä väitteet tai tutkivatko ne niitä asianmukaisesti.

Varmistaakseen, mitä toimia hänen olisi syytä toteuttaa, oikeusasiamies tarkasti asiaa koskevan EUH:n ja 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 tarkastamaan EULEXin toimeksiannon järjestelmän näkökulmasta ja kiinnittämään tässä erityistä huomiota esitettyihin väitteisiin.

Oikeusasiamies pani merkille, ettei EULEX ollut noudattanut vakiomenettelyään väitteiden tutkinnassa. Hän havaitsi myös, että ulkopuolisen syyttäjän palkkaamistapaa oli syytä tutkia. EU:n korkean edustajan vastikään nimittämä asiantuntija on kuitenkin tehnyt selväksi, että nämä kysymykset ovat mukana hänen suorittamassaan tarkastuksessa, joten oikeusasiamies katsoi, ettei hänen puoleltaan ollut tällä hetkellä aihetta lisätoimiin.

The case concerned the complainant's exclusion by the European Parliament from a selection procedure for research administrators.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and inspected the file held by Parliament.

On the basis of the information obtained during the inspection, the Ombudsman did not find maladministration by Parliament.

The case concerns whether the European Commission should have carried out a human rights impact assessment in the context of its negotiations to conclude a free trade agreement with Vietnam. The complainants believed that such an assessment was necessary, whereas the Commission’s position was that it was not necessary since a sustainability impact assessment had already been carried out in 2009 on a proposed EU/ASEAN free trade agreement, which included Vietnam.

The Ombudsman's conclusion was that the Commission's failure to carry out a specific human rights impact assessment, in relation to Vietnam, constituted maladministration. In March 2015 she recommended that the Commission should carry out such an assessment without further delay.

The Commission refused. It argued that its "non-trade policy instruments" and the human rights clauses in the partnership and cooperation agreement achieved that same purpose.

The Ombudsman did not agree and in doing so underlined the features inherent in the human rights impact assessment tool. As the Agreement has been concluded in the meantime, the Ombudsman closed the case with a critical remark.

The case concerned the Commission's decision to declare ineligible certain costs declared by a partner to an EU funded project. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission's grounds for not accepting the costs in question were reasonable. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

The complainant in this case, a Luxembourgish citizen, was excluded from competing for a post in France on the grounds that she is not a French national. The post in question was that of a non-presiding judge who was to represent the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at the French asylum Court. The complainant put it to the European Commission that the limiting of the post to French nationals appeared to be a breach of the provisions of EU law on the free movement of workers. When the Commission took the view that there was no infringement of EU law, the complainant contacted the Ombudsman.

The Commission took the view that an exception to the right of free movement of workers applied. This exception applies in the case of employment in the public service and is provided for in Article 45(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Commission acknowledged that a decision in this issue required a concrete assessment of the nature of the tasks and responsibilities of the non-presiding judge and it argued that it had made such an assessment. The Ombudsman noted that, as part of this assessment, the Commission had not contacted the French authorities in order to obtain further information about the post in question. The Ombudsman's initial proposal, therefore, was that the Commission should review its assessment of the infringement complaint and she suggested that the Commission should consult the French authorities. In replying to this proposal, the Commission maintained that it had sufficient information available to it when deciding the issue and that it was therefore unnecessary to contact the French authorities. Having considered its detailed reply to the proposal, the Ombudsman accepted that in this case the Commission did have sufficient information on which to base its decision. She therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration on the part of the Commission.

Tapauksessa oli kyse Euroopan petostentorjuntaviraston (OLAF) toimista sen vastaanotettua ilmiantokertomuksen, jossa Euroopan lentoturvallisuusvirasto (EASA) yhdistettiin ilmailun turvallisuustutkintaraportin väitettyyn peukalointiin. Alustavan arvioinnin perusteella oikeusasiamies oli huolissaan OLAFin ilmeisestä päätöksestä luopua asian käsittelystä ja siirtää asia takaisin EASAlle, vaikka ilmiantaja oli päättänyt tietoisesti laatia kertomuksensa OLAFille eikä EASAlle. Oikeusasiamies asettui alustavasti sille kannalle, että tällainen päätös saattaisi vaikuttaa kielteisesti ilmiantoa koskevien säännösten yleiseen tehokkuuteen. Hän päätti näin ollen tutkia asiaa.

OLAFin asiakirja-aineiston tutkittuaan oikeusasiamies totesi, että OLAF oli pohtinut tutkimuksen aloittamista asianmukaisesti. Kävi niin ikään ilmi, ettei OLAF itse asiassa ollut lopettanut asian käsittelyä vaan se oli pyytänyt EASAa tutkimaan asiaa ja raportoimaan tutkimustensa tuloksista. OLAF oli varannut lisäksi itselleen oikeuden käynnistää virallinen tutkimus myöhemmin. Näin ollen oikeusasiamies totesi, että OLAF oli käsittelyt kantelijan ilmiantokertomuksen asianmukaisesti. Oikeusasiamies huomautti, että OLAFin olisi pitänyt ilmoittaa kantelijalle selvemmin, ettei asian siirtäminen EASAlle tarkoittanut sitä, ettei OLAF toteuttaisi mitään jatkotoimia asian suhteen. Oikeusasiamies esitti tältä osin lisähuomautuksen.

The case concerned an infringement complaint submitted to the European Commission in relation to the alleged failure of Germany to implement properly certain provisions of the ePrivacy directive. The complainant turned to the European Ombudsman alleging that the Commission had failed to explain properly the reasons for not commencing an investigation. The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found that the Commission subsequently provided an adequate explanation in relation to some of the issues raised by the complainant. As regards the issues in relation to which the Commission did not provide an adequate explanation, the Ombudsman closed the case with a critical remark.

The case concerned the European Commission's alleged failure to inform the complainant about the priority status of his State aid complaint.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue. In the course of her inquiry, the Commission informed the complainant that his complaint was not treated as a priority case. However, the Commission did not explain the reasons for its decision. The Ombudsman therefore closed the complaint with a critical remark concerning the Commission's failure to inform the complainant about why it had given a low priority status to his state aid complaint.