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

Langue

Date

Keywords

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Affichage 1 - 20 des 142 résultats

Decision in case 1350/2018/MDC on the European Investment Bank’s alleged failure to address properly an allegation that an administrative inquiry was tainted by a conflict of interest

Jeudi | 25 juillet 2019

The case concerned the European Investment Bank’s (EIB) alleged failure to address properly an allegation that an administrative inquiry launched against the complainant was tainted by a conflict of interest.

The European Ombudsman found that the EIB had provided sufficient evidence to refute the allegation of a conflict of interest. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 1324/2017/LM on how the European Commission appointed the Director General of its Internal Audit Service

Mardi | 23 juillet 2019

The case concerned how the European Commission appointed its internal auditor, who had formerly served as the Commission’s accounting officer. The complainant contended that, according to international audit standards, internal auditors should not assess activities for which they were responsible over the course of the previous year. Thus, the Commission should not have appointed the former accounting officer as internal auditor before this ‘cooling off period’ of one year had elapsed.

The Commission argued that the cooling off period did not apply to this case. However, in order to avoid any perception that there could be a conflict of interest, the Commission ensured that the internal auditor would not be in charge of any audit related to his previous responsibilities.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had put in place adequate measures to prevent any conflict of interest arising. She thus closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. 

Décision dans l’affaire 1880/2017/CEC portant sur l’élaboration par l’Office européen de lutte antifraude d’un rapport final d’enquête sur des cas d’irrégularité et de fraude ayant entaché des projets cofinancés par des fonds de l’Union européenne

Jeudi | 18 juillet 2019

L’affaire porte sur la manière dont l’Office européen de lutte antifraude (OLAF) a établi son rapport final d’enquête sur les cas d’irrégularité et de fraude ayant entaché des projets financés par l’Union européenne. Le plaignant a fait valoir que le rapport final violait les garanties procédurales prévues par la réglementation applicable, contenait des erreurs factuelles et ne pouvait donc pas être utilisé comme élément de preuve devant une juridiction.

La Médiatrice a ouvert une enquête sur les allégations du plaignant et n’a constaté aucune mauvaise administration de la part de l’OLAF. Elle a toutefois formulé des suggestions sur la manière dont l’OLAF pourrait apporter de nouvelles améliorations aux garanties procédurales des personnes faisant l’objet d’une enquête. Au vu de ces éléments, elle a clos l’affaire.

Decision in case 766/2018/PL on how the European Chemicals Agency conducted a consultation on a proposal to restrict lead in gunshot

Mardi | 16 juillet 2019

The case concerns how the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) conducted a consultation of stakeholders on a proposal to restrict lead in gunshot used in wetlands. The complainant took issue with the wording of the questions and the fact that the consultation was available in English only.

The Ombudsman considers that the questions, and the opportunity to send general comments, allowed participants to express their views freely. Regarding languages, however, the Ombudsman found ECHA’s justification for using English only to be inadequate.

The Ombudsman therefore welcomes ECHA’s commitment for the future to consider translating into other languages at least parts of its consultations. Where ECHA restricts the use of languages, it should put in place relevant safeguards such as making available a summary in all EU official languages, making relevant supporting material available in as many languages as possible and, above all, making clear that responses can be submitted in any EU official language. This latter element is a fundamental right.

The Ombudsman closed the case with a suggestion to ECHA to avoid similar problems arising in the future.

Decision in case 1082/2018/PL on how the European Chemicals Agency conducted a consultation on a proposal to restrict lead in gunshot

Mardi | 16 juillet 2019

The case concerns how the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) conducted a consultation of stakeholders on a proposal to restrict lead in gunshot used in wetlands. The complainant took issue with the wording of the questions and the fact that the consultation was available in English only.

The Ombudsman considers that the questions, and the opportunity to send general comments, allowed participants to express their views freely. Regarding languages, however, the Ombudsman found ECHA’s justification for using English only to be inadequate.

The Ombudsman therefore welcomes ECHA’s commitment for the future to consider translating into other languages at least parts of its consultations. Where ECHA restricts the use of languages, it should put in place relevant safeguards such as making available a summary in all EU official languages, making relevant supporting material available in as many languages as possible and, above all, making clear that responses can be submitted in any EU official language. This latter element is a fundamental right.

The Ombudsman closed the case with a suggestion to ECHA to avoid similar problems arising in the future.

Decision in case 1319/2018/KT on the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises not inviting an applicant to an interview and test in a staff selection procedure

Lundi | 27 mai 2019

The complainant participated in a selection procedure for contract staff organised by the EU Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME). He turned to the Ombudsman to complain about lack of transparency and fairness in EASME´s assessment of his application.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, EASME provided adequate explanations about how it had assessed the complainant´s application. The Ombudsman found no maladministration in relation to EASME´s substantive assessment of the application and closed the case.

Decision in case 34/2019/MOM on the way in which the European Commission is dealing with an infringement complaint against Latvia concerning a law restricting the acquisition of agricultural land to proficient speakers of Latvian only

Vendredi | 26 avril 2019

The case concerned the European Commission’s infringement procedure against Latvia about a law restricting the acquisition of agricultural law to individuals proficient in Latvian. The complainant claimed that the Commission had not taken sufficient action with regard to the infringement case.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and the Commission clarified how it was handling the case.

Based on the Commission’s clarifications, the Ombudsman found that it was acting in line with its powers. The Ombudsman therefore closed the complaint with no finding of maladministration.

Decision in case 2124/2017/KT on the treatment of certain journalists by the European Parliament’s Information Office in Cyprus

Jeudi | 25 avril 2019

The complaint was about how the European Parliament’s Information Office in Cyprus selected journalists to travel to a conference in Brussels organised by Parliament. The complainant considered that the Information Office´s outreach policy is not transparent, especially when it comes to selecting journalists to travel abroad to cover its activities.

The Ombudsman found that Parliament’s criteria for selecting journalists were reasonable and concluded that there was no maladministration.

Decision in case 1113/2018/TM on the European Commission’s decision not to web stream the event "No Child Left Behind "

Mardi | 16 avril 2019

The case concerned the event "No Child Left Behind: Families not institutions - EU external action championing children's rights" which was co-organised by an NGO and the European Commission. Access to the event was by invitation only. The complainant was concerned that the Commission had decided not to web stream the event.

The Commission based its decision on the protection of privacy of the young people, including children, who participated in the event.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission acted reasonably and found no maladministration in this case.

Decision in case 1513/2018/LM on how the European Personnel Selection Office assessed professional experience in the context of a staff selection procedure for EU civil servants

Vendredi | 12 avril 2019

The complainant took part in a recruitment procedure for EU civil servants organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO). The complainant turned to the Ombudsman complaining that EPSO had not assessed his professional experience correctly and that it had not replied to some questions.

The Ombudsman found no maladministration in relation to the assessment of the complainant’s professional experience. EPSO also answered the complainant’s questions in the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry and thus settled that aspect of the complaint.