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

Mots clés

Failure to respect the right to be heard [Article 16 ECGAB]

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Affichage 1 - 20 des 53 résultats

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 1323/2018/MH concerning how the European Commission dealt with a complaint about computerised reservation systems in the airline sector

Lundi | 15 juillet 2019

The case concerned how the European Commission dealt with a complaint from an industry association concerning an airline’s compliance with EU rules on computerised reservation systems.

The Commission sent a letter to the complainant informing it of its intention to reject the complaint. The complainant disagreed with the Commission’s reasoning. It also considered that the Commission had not dealt with its complaint within a reasonable timeframe and had set too short a deadline to submit observations.

As the Commission has said that it will shortly send a second letter to the complainant with further explanations for rejecting the complaint, it would serve no useful purpose at this stage to inquire further into the Commission’s reasoning.

The Ombudsman found that the time taken by the Commission to date to deal with the complaint was reasonable, given its complexity. She also found that the complainant had had sufficient opportunity to submit its observations. The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration concerning these aspects of the complaint.

Decision in case 567/2018/MDC on the failure of a European Union Delegation to give due consideration to the complainant’s objections to the findings that certain costs were ineligible under a grant contract

Vendredi | 12 juillet 2019

The case concerned the decision of an EU Delegation to recover over EUR 100 000 it had paid out as part of a grant for an EU funded project aimed at promoting non-violent conflict resolution, tolerance and mutual understanding in parts of the Middle East. The complainant argued that the Delegation had failed to give due consideration to its objections to audit findings that certain costs were ineligible under the grant contract.

In the course of the inquiry, the Commission engaged with the complainant in relation to its objections. The Ombudsman found that the explanations it gave in this context were reasonable and concluded that there was no maladministration on this aspect. As one other matter is now before a court, the Ombudsman can no longer examine it. On this basis, the Ombudsman closed the case.

Decision in case 268/2017/MH on how the European Commission dealt with an application to authorise formaldehyde as an additive to animal feed

Lundi | 04 février 2019

The complaint concerned how the European Commission dealt with an application for formaldehyde to be authorised as an additive to animal feed.

The complainant considered that the Commission had lacked objectivity, was politically-motivated and had not sufficiently taken into account scientific opinion in proposing to refuse the authorisation of formaldehyde. The complainant also considered that the Commission had not properly explained the reasons for its proposal.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had acted on objective grounds and taken into account all the relevant factors, in particular, the scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority. She also found that the Commission had provided a satisfactory explanation as to why the final ‘implementing regulation’, which refused the application to authorise formaldehyde, had changed, compared to earlier drafts.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

Decision in case 1288/2018/LM on the European Parliament’s decision to revoke the extension of a traineeship

Lundi | 03 décembre 2018

The case concerned Parliament’s decision to revoke the extension of the complainant’s traineeship. The complainant argued primarily that Parliament had failed to give reasons for its decision.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that Parliament had given the complainant clear explanations as to why the extension was revoked. The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.