Hae tutkimuksia

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (`EPSO`) practice of not permitting candidates to apply for more than one concurrent recruitment competition for EU civil servants even where they fulfilled the criteria. EPSO refused to allow the complainant to apply under two concurrent competitions for recruiting translators for the EU institutions, and failed to convincingly explain the reasons for applying this practice.

The Ombudsman found that this practice could have the consequence of hindering the recruitment of the most qualified persons and that, accordingly, EPSO should be able to provide convincing reasoning as to why it has this practice. The Ombudsman found that EPSO´s failure to provide such reasoning to the complainant constituted maladministration. She found also that any continuation of the practice, in the absence of solid reasoning, would necessarily also constitute maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore recommended to EPSO that it immediately review its policy in relation to this practice.

In response, EPSO set up an internal reflection group to conduct a detailed impact assessment of any policy change in this area. The assessment will be presented to EPSO's Management Board by December 2018. The Board must take the final decision. As EPSO is acting on her recommendation, the Ombudsman has decided to close the case.

The case concerned the assessment of the probationary period of a temporary agent at the European Asylum Support Office (‘EASO’). The complainant, who was dismissed at the end of her probationary period, argued that there were a number of procedural shortcomings in her assessment. Moreover, the EASO failed to reply to her complaints made under the EU Staff Regulations.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and requested the EASO to reply to the complaints. She found that the EASO had taken the necessary steps to ensure an impartial assessment of the complainant’s probationary period and had respected the complainant’s right to be heard before taking the final decision on her further employment. The Ombudsman thus closed the case.

EU officials are required to demonstrate the ability to work in a third language before their first promotion. When the complainant, who works in an EU Agency, failed a language proficiency exam in his third language, he asked EPSO to give him reasons for the relatively low grade in the writing test of the exam and also inform him of possible review mechanisms. In his view, EPSO’s explanations concerning his grade seemed inconsistent, while its initial reply about review possibilities was incorrect. Following the complainant’s insistence, EPSO agreed to reassess his writing test. The second evaluator confirmed the initial grade.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue. She examined the complainant’s test, as well as the assessments of the two evaluators. The Ombudsman did not find any manifest error or indications of partiality in the assessment of the complainant’s writing test. Concerning the erroneous information about the review possibilities, EPSO recognised its mistake and apologised to the complainant. The Ombudsman did not consider that further inquiries were necessary and closed the case. However, she made a suggestion for improvement concerning the information given to participants in language proficiency tests about the procedure and their review/appeal rights.

The case concerned the decision of the ECDC to terminate the contract of a temporary agent at the end of a probationary period.

The Ombudsman conducted an inquiry into the matter and took the view that, in general terms, the explanations given by the ECDC about its decision not to retain the complainant in employment at the end of the probationary period were reasonable.

However, the Ombudsman considered that the ECDC had failed to make clear to the complainant, in good time, (a) that the problems identified in the Newcomers' Evaluation Dialogue were so serious as to warrant the termination of the complainant's contract, (b) the areas in which he needed to improve, through a specific and clear Action Plan. The failure to do so constituted maladministration. Moreover, the Ombudsman considers that, in circumstances in which an EU body does not have enough time to evaluate properly the work of a temporary agent, or where the temporary agent has not had an adequate opportunity to correct deficiencies in his or her performance, it would be good administration to examine if "exceptional circumstances" justifying the extension of the probationary period exist. As there is no evidence in the file that the ECDC seriously examined the option of extending the complainant's probation period, the Ombudsman made a corresponding suggestion for improvement for the future. Finally, given that it is good administration to apologise for any bad practice, the Ombudsman believes that the ECDC should acknowledge its mistakes in dealing with this case and apologise to the complainant for these mistakes.

The case concerned the Commission's decision to change its original proposal on the transfer in of the complainant's pension rights, acquired in the UK pension scheme, into the EU pension scheme.

The Commission argued that it was required to change its original proposal as it had been based on General Implementing Provisions which were already out of date at the time its proposal was made. The Commission's revised proposal, which was less favourable to the complainant, was based on the revised General Implementing Provisions actually in place at the date of the original proposal. The complainant argued that the Commission should honour its first proposal that he had already accepted.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the General Court had ruled that the Commission was not legally required to make proposals on the transfer in of pension rights acquired outside of the EU pension scheme and that, in fact, an actual determination of the worth of such transferred pension rights could be given only after the transfer had been made. In fact, this was a practice established by the Commission simply to better inform its officials about what they could expect once they actually decided to request the transfer in of their pension rights into the EU pension scheme.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the complaint with a conclusion that there was no maladministration by 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 the complainant's dismissal as a member of staff in a European Union Police Mission, and his subsequent request to have access to the documents contained in his personal file.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the complainant's dismissal was legal. However, she also found that the Mission should have waited for the completion of the internal review process, which actually dealt with the complainant's situation, before dismissing the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore considered it appropriate to ask the European External Action Service (EEAS), in a proposal for a solution, to offer the complainant an ex gratia payment in recognition of the errors made by the Mission. The EEAS accepted the proposal and offered to make an ex gratia payment of EUR 2000.The complainant did not accept the offer. The Ombudsman considered that the amount offered by the EEAS was appropriate and that there were therefore no grounds for further inquiries into this aspect of the case.

As regards the complainant's access to his personal file, the Ombudsman found that there had not been any maladministration on the part of the EEAS.

EU:n toimielimillä on ollut 1. tammikuuta 2014 lähtien velvollisuus ottaa käyttöön ilmiantamista koskevat sisäiset säännöt, jotka kattavat ilmiantajien suojelun, tietojen antamisen ilmiantajille ja ilmiantajien tekemien kohteluaan koskevien valitusten käsittelymenettelyn. Oikeusasiamies käynnisti oma-aloitteisen tutkimuksen, joka koski Euroopan parlamenttia, Euroopan komissiota, Euroopan unionin neuvostoa, Euroopan unionin tuomioistuinta, Euroopan tilintarkastustuomioistuinta, Euroopan ulkosuhdehallintoa, Euroopan talous- ja sosiaalikomiteaa, alueiden komiteaa ja Euroopan tietosuojavaltuutettua. Tarkoituksena oli varmistaa, että EU:n hallinto tekee kaiken voitavansa kannustaakseen henkilöitä, joiden tietoon tulee vakava laiminlyönti tai väärinkäytös, kertomaan kyseisestä epäkohdasta.

Oikeusasiamies joutui pettymään tutkimustensa tuloksiin: tähän mennessä ainoastaan kaksi kyseisistä yhdeksästä toimielimestä oli ottanut käyttöön vaaditun kaltaiset säännöt. Toimielinten vastauksista kävi ilmi, että paljon enemmän on tehtävä, jotta kansalaisille ja mahdollisille ilmiantajille voidaan osoittaa, että EU:n toimielimet suhtautuvat ilmiantamiseen myönteisesti ja rohkaisevat ilmiantajia kertomaan epäkohdista, että ilmiantajia suojellaan työnantajana olevan toimielimen kielteisiä toimia vastaan ja että heidän tekemänsä ilmoitukset johtavat asianmukaiseen tutkintaan. Oikeusasiamies päätti näin ollen asian käsittelyn antamalla ohjeet tulevista parannuksista ja kehottamalla toimielimiä saattamaan toimielinten väliset keskustelunsa päätökseen mahdollisimman pian sekä käyttämään tässä yhteydessä esimerkkinä oikeusasiamiehen omia ilmiantamista koskevia sisäisiä sääntöjä. Oikeusasiamies myös kiitti komissiota ja tilintarkastustuomioistuinta niiden tähänastisesta edistymisestä asiassa.