Haluatko tehdä kantelun EU:n toimielimestä tai elimestä?

Hae tutkimuksia

Näytetään 1–20 yhteensä 30 tuloksesta

Decision in OI/4/2018/MMO on how the EU Delegation to Albania carried out a competition for young architects

Torstaina | 14 maaliskuuta 2019

The case concerned a call for proposals drawn up and published by the EU Delegation to Albania in the context of the European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018. The call was aimed at young architects and involved project proposals for new bed and breakfast buildings. The Delegation assigned the task of running the competition to external contractors. One of the participating architects complained that the procedure lacked transparency and impartiality.

The Ombudsman found that the Delegation had ensured that the process was fair, objective and transparent. She closed the inquiry finding that there was no maladministration.

Decision in case 342/2017/DR on the European Investment Bank’s rejection of a request for funding under the European Fund for Strategic Investments for a digital economy project in Guadeloupe

Perjantaina | 14 joulukuuta 2018

The case concerned the European Investment Bank’s (EIB) rejection of a request for funding, under the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), for a digital economy project in Guadeloupe.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how the EIB had dealt with the funding request and whether it had provided a reasonable explanation for rejecting it. The Ombudsman also looked into how the EIB’s Complaints Mechanism handled the subsequent complaint about the EIB’s decision to reject the request.

The Ombudsman found that, after the EIB-CM got involved, the EIB settled the matter of failure to reply to the complainant. For the rest, the Ombudsman found no maladministration. She identified, however, room for improvement in how the EIB-CM deals with matters that fall outside its remit and made a suggestion for improvement.  

Decision in case 602/2017/AMF on the European Personnel Selection Office’s exclusion of a candidate from a selection procedure for EU civil servants because the application had not been submitted in the correct language

Torstaina | 07 kesäkuuta 2018

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) excluded the complainant from a selection procedure for the recruitment of EU civil servants because he had not filled out his application in the correct language.

The complainant turned to the Ombudsman, who inquired into the issue. The rules for the recruitment procedure required applicants to fill out the application form in their chosen ‘second language’, which for the complainant was French. The complainant argued that he had merely used some English IT terminology. However, the Ombudsman found that he had described some of his professional experience entirely in English, by writing full sentences and not only using IT terminology. EPSO was thus right to exclude him from the selection procedure and the Ombudsman found no maladministration. 

Decision in case 1100/2017/STI on allegedly inappropriate advice given by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights

Tiistaina | 26 syyskuuta 2017

The complainant is a Romanian citizen living in the Republic of Moldova. The case concerned allegedly inappropriate advice given by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights related to the alleged discrimination at events organized under an EU funded project. The complainant moreover expressed criticism of the inability of the Fundamental Rights Agency to handle individual complaints.

The European Ombudsman found that the advice given to the complainant was extensive and appropriate. The Ombudsman could also confirm that the Agency for Fundamental Rights does not have a mandate to handle individual complaints about fundamental rights.

The Ombudsman found no maladministration and closed the case. 

Decision in case 132/2017/PL on the European Commission’s decision to close its examination of an infringement complaint about a sewage treatment plant in Spain before the complainant could send comments

Torstaina | 21 syyskuuta 2017

The case concerned the way the European Commission dealt with a complaint about a sewage treatment plant in Sabadell (Spain), which was financed through the EU’s Cohesion Fund. The complainant claimed that the Commission had failed to inform him that it would not further investigate the issue.

The Ombudsman’s inquiry into the matter confirmed that the Commission had not informed the complainant of its intention to close the case. The Ombudsman proposed, as a solution, that the Commission give the complainant the possibility to submit his comments on its decision. The Commission accepted this solution and the Ombudsman closed the case.