Hae tutkimuksia

The case concerned the contractual conditions of ‘locally recruited teachers’ (LRTs) in the European Schools. While the European Schools are not an EU institution, the European Commission has an important role in them, as it has a seat on the Board of Governors and is the main contributor to the Schools’ budget.

The Ombudsman inquired into the Commission’s role and actions taken in relation to the contractual situation of LRTs. She noted that most LRTs’ contracts lack stability, as they can be terminated where teachers from the national systems of Member States are seconded to a European School, regardless of the time they have been working for the European Schools.

The Ombudsman considered that, even if the European Schools are only bound by their own rules, the Commission should use its role to ensure, within the limits of its power, that LRTs’ contractual and working conditions are fully in line with EU employment laws and principles.

The Commission has a long term solution for the Schools which it is focused, first and foremost, on implementing. The Ombudsman pointed out that it is of the greatest importance that the Commission closely monitors the implementation of the solution with a view to limiting, as much as possible, the negative impact on LRTs. The Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will take whatever action is needed to address any negative impact and, then, if needed will consider further improvements to the LRTs’ working conditions.

In light of this, the Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries are justified at this stage and closed the case.

The case concerned the decision by the European Commission to recover EU funds granted under a contract for the provision of technical assistance in Gabon. The complainant considered that the cost of the protective measures it had adopted when the ‘contracting authority’ suspended the contract should have been added to the price of the contract, and thus covered by EU funds. The complainant also claimed that, as the amount recovered by the Commission was equivalent to the amount owed to the complainant by the contracting authority for the protective measures, the Commission should have offset the amount it sought to recover by this amount.

The Ombudsman considered that there was a sound legal basis for the Commission’s decision, and that it was reasonable for the Commission to recover the funds. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned a request for public access to a dataset containing company names and details held in the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS). BRIS interconnects the business registers of EU Member States and is operated by the Commission.

In refusing public access, the Commission argued that the requested dataset does not qualify as an existing document, in line with EU case law, because it could not be retrieved as part of the normal operations of the BRIS IT-system and would require additional programming.

The Ombudsman found that, given the specificities of the database in question, substantial investment would be required to extract the dataset from BRIS and present it to the complainant in a readable format. The decision of the Commission to refuse access was therefore reasonable.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the education and professional experience of a candidate in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of agriculture.

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

The case concerned the decision by the EU Delegation to Mauritania to terminate a contract for auditing services with an audit company. The Delegation argued that the audit company, which had its seat in Morocco, had failed to base its auditors in Mauritania permanently, despite its contractual obligation to do so. The Delegation had also decided to reject one of the audit reports that the company submitted because it deemed that the report had been signed by an unauthorised staff member of that company. The Delegation also refused to pay the company for the remaining reports.

The Ombudsman conducted an extensive inquiry. She found that the Delegation’s decision to reject the audit report and to terminate the contract was not unreasonable and did not amount to maladministration. The Ombudsman did not find maladministration in how the Delegation handled the subsequent amicable settlement procedure.

However, how the Delegation handled the communication with the complainant, in particular in providing comments on draft audit reports and explaining clearly its decisions, did amount to maladministration.

As these issues occurred five years ago, the Ombudsman considered that no purpose would be served by making a recommendation on that aspect of the complaint.