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

Recherche dans les affaires

Recherche textuelle

Type de document

Institution concernée

Type de réglement

Numéro d'affaire




Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Affichage 1 - 20 des 90 résultats

Decision in case 1541/2018/JN on the Research Executive Agency’s refusal to provide full access to documents related to its assessment of an EU-funded project

Mercredi | 14 août 2019

The case concerned the Research Executive Agency’s handling of several requests for access to documents made in the context of its assessment of an EU-funded project. The complainant, who represents a consortium having participated in the project, was dissatisfied that the Agency disclosed only redacted versions of the documents and criticised the Agency’s procedural conduct.

The Ombudsman found that the Agency’s handling of the requests was satisfactory both as regards the procedural aspects and the justification provided for partial disclosure only.

Decision in case 1375/2018/PB on the European Commission’s interpretation of ‘productive hours’ for the reimbursement of personnel costs incurred in projects under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7)

Mercredi | 29 mai 2019

The case concerned the calculation of costs financed under the EU’s 7th Framework Programme for research (FP7).

The European Commission audited three projects for which the complainant, a German research institute, had received FP7 funding. It made no findings of any deliberate wrongdoing by the complainant, but concluded that the complainant should repay some of the funds because it had used a calculation method for indirect costs that included costs that were not related to the FP7 funded projects.

The complainant thought it had applied a legitimate calculation method, and therefore asked the Ombudsman to examine the matter.

The Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration by the Commission, and she closed the inquiry.

Decision in cases 1512/2018/JN and 1533/2018/JN on the Research Executive Agency’s decision to recover funds in the context of an EU-funded project

Jeudi | 11 avril 2019

The cases concerned how the Research Executive Agency (‘REA’) assessed a project focusing on the development of a technology. The complainant was concerned that the REA’s conduct and assessment had been unfair.

The Ombudsman examined the evidence provided by the complainant and found that the REA had taken adequate actions to settle the issues raised by the complainant. The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry.

Decision in case 1830/2017/SRS on how the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) selects external experts to provide scientific advice

Vendredi | 08 février 2019

This case concerned how the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) selected experts to take part in a working group, which drafted an opinion on the use of non-human primates in research.

The complainant argued that the procedure to select the experts was not transparent and that the Commission had not ensured a plurality of views within the working group. It argued, in particular, that the working group did not include a sufficient number of experts on the alternatives to non-human primates in research.

The Ombudsman found that SCHEER did not exceed its broad margin of discretion in selecting experts in this case and that the process was sufficiently transparent. The Ombudsman therefore concluded that there was no maladministration.