The case concerned how the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) addressed allegations of fundamental rights violations in its activities on the Greek island of Samos. The complainants were concerned that the way caseworkers deployed in the EUAA asylum support teams conducted interviews with vulnerable asylum seekers was against EU law, and that the EUAA had failed to address this. In addition, the complainants were concerned with how the EUAA dealt with the asylum seekers’ reports of pushbacks.

The Ombudsman found that, at the time of the complaint, the EUAA had failed to ensure that caseworkers deployed in its asylum support teams were prepared to properly conduct interviews with vulnerable asylum seekers, including as regards how to take into account indicators of vulnerabilities when these emerge for the first time during the asylum interview. The Ombudsman further found that the EUAA had failed to provide vulnerable asylum seekers with an appropriate procedure to report mistakes made during interviews and to have such reports reviewed by the EUAA. The Ombudsman found that this constituted maladministration and made four recommendations to the EUAA to address the shortcomings.

The Ombudsman also sent these recommendations to her counterparts from the European Network of Ombudsmen (ENO), seeking their views on how compliance with fundamental rights is ensured in the cooperation between EUAA caseworkers and national asylum officials.

In addition, the Ombudsman identified important shortcomings in relation to how the EUAA dealt with the asylum seekers’ disclosure of experiences of pushbacks during interviews. As the EUAA started implementing measures to remedy these shortcomings during the Ombudsman’s inquiry, she did not find maladministration but instead made two suggestions for improvement.

Tapaus koski konsulttiyritystä, joka oli Euroopan petostentorjuntaviraston (OLAF) tutkinnan kohteena EU:n rahoittamiin hankkeisiin liittyvien epäiltyjen sääntöjenvastaisuuksien vuoksi. OLAF ilmoitti yritykselle lopettaneensa tutkimuksen ja esitti komissiolle taloudellisia ja hallinnollisia suosituksia. Vaikka OLAF ilmoitti yritykselle, että se voisi kääntyä OLAFin prosessuaalisten takeiden valvojan puoleen, OLAF ei antanut selkeitä tietoja valituksen tekemiselle asetetusta määräajasta. Tämä tarkoitti, että yritys jätti valituksen määräajan jälkeen, ja valvoja hylkäsi valituksen.

Oikeusasiamies totesi, että OLAF oli syyllistynyt hallinnolliseen epäkohtaan, koska se ei ollut toimittanut kantelijalle selkeitä tietoja erityisesti tutkimuksen päättymispäivästä. Oikeusasiamies katsoi kuitenkin, että kantelijalle ei ollut asianmukaista suositusta asian käsittelemiseksi. Hän esitti kuitenkin ehdotuksen, jonka tarkoituksena oli estää tällaisen ongelman esiintyminen tulevissa samankaltaisissa tapauksissa.