Hae tutkimuksia

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the eligibility of a candidate in a selection procedure for French-language lawyer-linguists. EPSO considered that the complainant was not eligible because he did not have the required diplomas. The complainant contested EPSO’s decision, claiming that he did have the required diplomas.

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman found issues with the decision of the selection board to consider the complainant ineligible. She proposed that EPSO ask the selection board to reconsider its position on the eligibility of the complainant for the selection procedure. EPSO agreed to review the candidate’s eligibility and asked the complainant for additional documents. The complainant failed to respond to EPSO’s request. On this basis, EPSO rejected the solution proposal, as it considered that, without these additional documents, it could not review the candidate’s eligibility.

Against this background, the Ombudsman took the view that no further inquiries are justified in this case. She nevertheless made a suggestion to EPSO that, in future selection procedures, selection boards ensure that decisions on the eligibility of candidates are based on a clear understanding of the information provided by candidates in their applications. In case of doubt as to the eligibility of a candidate, the selection board should request additional information from the candidate or seek clarifications from national authorities or other third parties.

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.

 

The case concerned the way in which the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) carried out two selection procedures to recruit experts in the field of cybersecurity who would fit one or more of three profiles. The complainant took part in both procedures and raised concerns about the scoring methodology applied by ENISA and the inconsistency of the scores he received in one procedure.

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team noted that the scoring methodology used in both procedures put candidates applying for one or two profiles only at a disadvantage in comparison to those who applied for all three profiles. This was not clear in the vacancy notices. It also requested explanations to ENISA on the inconsistencies in the complainant’s scores.

ENISA acknowledged the inconsistencies in the scores received by the complainant and offered to invite him to the next stage of both selection procedures.

The Ombudsman found that, as ENISA has taken appropriate steps to remedy the issues raised by the complainant, no further inquiries are justified in this case and closed the inquiry.

The case concerned a selection procedure organised by the European Parliament to recruit ‘intercultural and language professionals’. The complainant considered that the score he received in the ‘talent evaluator’ stage of the procedure, which aimed to evaluate candidates’ qualifications and professional experience, did not represent an accurate assessment of his relevant professional experience and his studies in the field.

The Ombudsman found no manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s talent evaluator and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. She identified some elements for Parliament to consider in future procedures and drew Parliament’s attention to them.

The complainant, who used to work as an external IT expert for the European External Action Service (EEAS) through a contractor, was concerned that the EEAS had shown no flexibility and understanding with regard to his personal circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic. He took issue with how the EEAS had dealt with his request to work remotely (or ‘telework’) outside his place of work, as well as with how it had informed him about the imminent termination of his employment contract.  

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest that the EEAS had improperly managed the working relationship with the complainant. However, the Ombudsman found that how the EEAS had informed the complainant that it had asked for him to be replaced amounted to maladministration.

Given the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considered that a recommendation would serve no useful purpose and closed the inquiry by making suggestions for improvement to the EEAS.

The case concerned a procurement procedure for “light post editing services” organised by the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) and divided in different lots.

The complainant submitted a tender for one of the lots but the CdT rejected her offer, as it claimed that the complainant had not submitted documentary evidence for her professional experience. However, the complainant claimed that, according to the call for tenders, tenderers who had submitted tenders in previous procedures were not required to resubmit documentary evidence.

The Ombudsman found that the CdT provided contradictory information to tenderers as to whether they should resubmit supporting documents already provided in another procurement procedure. She therefore proposed as a solution that the CdT not renew the current framework contract for the specific lot at issue and, instead, carry out a new procurement procedure, providing greater clarity as to what documents tenderers are expected to submit.

The CdT informed the Ombudsman that it did not renew the framework contracts for that lot. The CdT added that it has revised the wording of the documentation used in procurement procedures to provide greater clarity for tenderers. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding that the solution proposal had been accepted.