Vous souhaitez déposer une plainte contre
une institution ou un organe de l’Union européenne?

Décisions

Les décisions faisant suite à une enquête effectuée par le Médiateur européen sont disponibles dans cette section pour les affaires closes depuis le 1er juillet 1998. Les décisions sont normalement disponibles en anglais et dans la langue de la plainte.

01/09/2008: Le Médiateur européen adopte un nouveau style de décision.

Affichage 1 - 10 des 4278 résultats

Decision in case 1324/2018/MH on how the European Parliament dealt with the reimbursement of travel expenses for an interview and tests

Lundi | 24 juin 2019

The complaint concerned the European Parliament’s decision not to reimburse a candidate for a contract agent post his travel and subsistence expenses. He incurred these expenses when he travelled to Brussels to attend an interview and tests. The complainant was concerned that Parliament’s decision was illegal, and contrary to the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment.

The Ombudsman found that, at the time, Parliament did not provide contract agent candidates with a contribution towards their travel and subsistence expenses. Parliament’s decision not to reimburse the complainant was in line with its rules in place at the time and respected equal treatment among candidates applying for the same category of post.

Parliament has since changed its rules so that candidates for contract agent posts are now eligible to receive a financial contribution towards their travel and subsistence expenses when attending interviews and tests. The Ombudsman welcomes this change to the rules.

Although she can appreciate the complainant’s sense of grievance surrounding the rules in place at the time, the Ombudsman does not find maladministration and closes the case.

Decision in case 1140/2018/MH on how the European Investment Bank dealt with concerns about agreements concluded for its staff with healthcare providers in Luxembourg

Vendredi | 21 juin 2019

The complaint to the European Investment Bank 1. The complainant is a member of staff at the European Investment Bank (the EIB). He raised concerns with the EIB about certain agreements it had concluded for its staff with healthcare providers in Luxembourg. One agreement was with hospitals and another with doctors and dentists. Under both agreements, healthcare providers can invoice a percentage s...

Decision in case 1381/2017/JN on the European Commission’s decision to recover money in four EU funded projects concerning freedom of expression and independent journalism in Belarus

Vendredi | 21 juin 2019

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to recover EUR 8 620 from an NGO in respect of four EU funded projects in the area of freedom of expression and independent journalism in Belarus.

The documents examined by the Ombudsman in the course of this inquiry did not reveal any shortcoming in the Commission’s assessment of whether the costs declared by the complainant were eligible. Moreover, the Ombudsman found that the Commission’s actions were in line with the principle of proportionality. The Ombudsman found no maladministration.

Entscheidung der Europäischen Bürgerbeauftragten in obigem Fall über die Entscheidung der Europäischen Bankenaufsichtsbehörde, keine Untersuchung hinsichtlich der Weigerung einer Maltesischen Bank, Überweisungsbeträge zurückzuerstatten, zu eröffnen

Vendredi | 21 juin 2019

Sehr geehrter Herr X, Sie haben sich am 7. Juni 2019 mit einer Beschwerde gegen die Europäische Bankenaufsichtsbehörde (EBA) an die Europäische Bürgerbeauftragte gewandt. Ihre Beschwerde betrifft in erster Linie die Entscheidung der EBA, keine Untersuchung hinsichtlich der Weigerung der X, Ihnen einen Betrag in Höhe von EUR 159.000,00 zu erstatten, zu eröffnen. Darüber hinaus scheinen Sie damit un...

Decision of the European Ombudsman in the above case on the alleged failure by the European Commission to inform the complainant of how it assessed his infringement complaint

Jeudi | 20 juin 2019

Dear Mr X, On 3 January 2019, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the above issue. The Ombudsman has asked me to deal with your complaint and reply to you on her behalf. After a careful analysis of all the information you provided with your complaint, we have decided to close the inquiry with the following conclusion: The information and e...

Decision in case 1767/2018/MIG on the European Commission’s refusal of broad public access to its audit report on the effectiveness of measures to handle manual interventions in its accrual-based accounting system

Mercredi | 19 juin 2019

The case concerned a request for public access to an audit report concerning the Commission’s financial system. The Commission had granted partial access to the report, arguing that granting full access would leave it open to cyber-attacks. The complainant considered that the redactions made by the Commission were too restrictive.

The Ombudsman inspected the requested documents and found that the Commission had granted appropriate partial access.

Decision in case 1946/2018/KR on how the General Secretariat of the Council informs the public about meetings that the European Council President and members of his private office have with interest representatives

Mardi | 18 juin 2019

The case concerned a request by a non-governmental organisation to the General Secretariat of the Council of the EU (GSC) to make public information about all meetings held between interest representatives and the President of the European Council, as well as members of his private office (‘cabinet’).

The General Secretariat of the Council replied to the complainant that while it is under no legal obligation to maintain a record of the meetings of the President or the cabinet members with external stakeholders, it is committed to publishing relevant information about meetings in a structured and proactive manner.

During the inquiry, the Ombudsman found that information on the meetings held by European Council President Tusk with interest representatives is made public. However, no information is available about any meetings that may take place between members of the President’s cabinet and interest representatives.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry making several suggestions aimed at improving the information that the GSC makes public.

Decision in case 526/2019/MMO on how the European Commission evaluated the eligibility of an organisation for a programme aiming at addressing drought emergencies and supporting resilience for sustainable livelihoods

Mardi | 18 juin 2019

Background to the complaint 1. The complainant is a research organisation created by charter with four signatories. 2. In November 2018, it participated in the call for proposals under EuropeAid/159965/DD/ACT/Kenya - FED/2017/039-257 - Ending Drought Emergencies: Support to Resilient Livelihoods and Drought Risk Management. 3. The call eligibility guidelines specified that lead applicants should b...

Decision of the European Ombudsman concerning complaint 813/2019/KR against the European Commission

Mardi | 18 juin 2019

Dear Ms X, On 6 May 2019, you submitted a complaint[1] to my Office against the European Commission concerning its failure to deal adequately with your infringement complaint (CHAP(2017)03487) against the Netherlands. Your infringement complaint to the Commission concerned an alleged breach of Council Directive 93/42/EC on medical devices (the Medical Devices Directive). You contend, among other t...

Decision in case 2199/2017/AMF on how the EU Delegation in Bolivia handled a procurement procedure

Mardi | 18 juin 2019

The case concerned a procurement procedure for an EU funded contract, managed by the EU Delegation in Bolivia. The Delegation informed the complainant that it had been awarded the contract. The complainant was also told that, if information received during the mandatory seven-day standstill period justified a more detailed examination of the tenders, the complainant would be immediately notified. Almost one month later, the Delegation informed the complainant that it had decided to award the contract to another tenderer.  

The Ombudsman found that the Delegation had not committed maladministration in evaluating a tender that had originally been rejected. However, the Delegation had failed to comply with its obligation to inform the complainant immediately that it had received information during the standstill period that could have an impact on the award of the contract. She therefore proposed to the Commission that the Delegation apologise to the complainant and compensate it for time and resources spent, after the standstill period, on preparing supporting documents.

The Commission accepted the Ombudsman´s proposal for a solution. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry.