Rechercher des enquêtes

The Transparency Register was set up by the European Commission and Parliament in 2011 to allow the public to monitor the activities of interest representatives (or “lobbyists”) who seek to influence the formulation and implementation of EU legislation and policy. Overall, the Register has been successful and while there are gaps, it is improving over time.

In 2016, the Commission organised a public consultation on several proposed reforms aimed at improving the Transparency Register.

In this context, the Ombudsman opened a ‘strategic initiative’, to contribute to this important debate and to monitor developments by writing to the Commission on the issue.

In January 2018, inter-institutional negotiations began between the Parliament, the Council of the EU and the Commission on the Commission’s proposal to revise and improve the Transparency Register. These negotiations have not yet led to a successful outcome.

The Ombudsman encourages the incoming Parliament, the Council and the incoming Commission to renew their efforts to improve the Transparency Register given the importance of this matter for public trust in the EU.

En 2015, un comité de l’ONU a jugé que le régime d’assurance santé pour le personnel de l’UE, le régime commun d’assurance maladie (RCAM), n’était pas conforme à la convention relative aux droits des personnes handicapées (CDPH). Le comité a recommandé à l’UE de modifier le RCAM afin d’offrir une couverture complète des soins de santé liés au handicap.

Après avoir reçu des plaintes de membres du personnel ayant rencontré des problèmes pour obtenir le remboursement intégral de leurs frais médicaux ou de ceux de membres de leur famille, la Médiatrice a mené une enquête stratégique. Elle en a conclu que l’absence de véritable action de la Commission européenne en réponse à la recommandation du comité représentait un cas de mauvaise administration. Elle a donc recommandé à la Commission de revoir les règles régissant le RCAM. Elle a également formulé un certain nombre de suggestions à l’intention de la Commission en ce qui concerne la couverture des besoins des personnes handicapées dans le RCAM, ainsi que sur la nécessité de former le personnel et de consulter les parties prenantes de manière appropriée afin de s’assurer que les besoins des personnes handicapées soient pris en compte dans le RCAM.

La Commission a répondu et a indiqué qu’elle allait revoir les règles régissant le RCAM et prendre des mesures afin de mettre en œuvre la plupart des suggestions de la Médiatrice.

La Commission ayant accepté la recommandation de la Médiatrice, cette dernière clôt l’enquête stratégique. Étant donné l’importance de cette problématique, elle demande à la Commission de lui donner un retour d’informations sur la mise en œuvre de la recommandation dans les six mois. La Médiatrice répète également sa suggestion concernant la nécessité, pour la Commission, de revoir ses règles de 2004 sur la prise en considération des besoins du personnel handicapé.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (`EPSO`) practice of not permitting candidates to apply for more than one concurrent recruitment competition for EU civil servants even where they fulfilled the criteria. EPSO refused to allow the complainant to apply under two concurrent competitions for recruiting translators for the EU institutions, and failed to convincingly explain the reasons for applying this practice.

The Ombudsman found that this practice could have the consequence of hindering the recruitment of the most qualified persons and that, accordingly, EPSO should be able to provide convincing reasoning as to why it has this practice. The Ombudsman found that EPSO´s failure to provide such reasoning to the complainant constituted maladministration. She found also that any continuation of the practice, in the absence of solid reasoning, would necessarily also constitute maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore recommended to EPSO that it immediately review its policy in relation to this practice.

In response, EPSO set up an internal reflection group to conduct a detailed impact assessment of any policy change in this area. The assessment will be presented to EPSO's Management Board by December 2018. The Board must take the final decision. As EPSO is acting on her recommendation, the Ombudsman has decided to close the case.

The complainant was excluded in 2013 from a competition to recruit administrators in the field of audit run by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO). He was excluded on the basis that his academic qualifications were not sufficiently relevant to the post advertised. The complainant pointed out in his complaint to the European Ombudsman that several candidates who had been admitted to the same competition in 2010 had diplomas that were the same as, or less relevant than, his diploma. He argued that if the other candidates’ qualifications were sufficient in 2010, then his diploma should be sufficient also in 2013.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the 2013 competition was the same competition as that originally run in 2010 and that the same criteria regarding qualifications should apply in 2013 as in 2010. The Ombudsman found maladministration by EPSO and recommended that EPSO ask the Selection Board to revise its decision on the complainant’s qualifications.

EPSO refused to accept the Ombudsman’s recommendation without providing

convincing reasons for its position. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a finding of maladministration.

The case concerned a decision by the European Commission to deem ineligible certain costs claimed by a non-governmental organisation, which participated in an EU-funded project aimed at combatting racism against Roma people. The complainant argued that the Commission had not properly examined the evidence before determining that the costs were ineligible.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that there was no maladministration by the Commission.