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

Rechercher des enquêtes

Affaire
Date
Mots clés
Ou essayez d’anciens mots-clefs (avant 2016)

Affichage 1 - 20 des 113 résultats

No maladministration in case about European Parliament selection procedure

Jeudi | 10 mars 2016

The case concerned the complainant's exclusion by the European Parliament from a selection procedure for research administrators.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and inspected the file held by Parliament.

On the basis of the information obtained during the inspection, the Ombudsman did not find maladministration by Parliament.

Decision in case 1409/2014/MHZ on the European Commission's failure to carry out a prior human rights impact assessment of the EU-Vietnam free trade agreement

Vendredi | 26 février 2016

The case concerns whether the European Commission should have carried out a human rights impact assessment in the context of its negotiations to conclude a free trade agreement with Vietnam. The complainants believed that such an assessment was necessary, whereas the Commission’s position was that it was not necessary since a sustainability impact assessment had already been carried out in 2009 on a proposed EU/ASEAN free trade agreement, which included Vietnam.

The Ombudsman's conclusion was that the Commission's failure to carry out a specific human rights impact assessment, in relation to Vietnam, constituted maladministration. In March 2015 she recommended that the Commission should carry out such an assessment without further delay.

The Commission refused. It argued that its "non-trade policy instruments" and the human rights clauses in the partnership and cooperation agreement achieved that same purpose.

The Ombudsman did not agree and in doing so underlined the features inherent in the human rights impact assessment tool. As the Agreement has been concluded in the meantime, the Ombudsman closed the case with a critical remark.

Decision in case 1134/2015/TN on the European Commission's decision to declare ineligible certain costs incurred by a partner to an EU funded project

Jeudi | 11 février 2016

The case concerned the Commission's decision to declare ineligible certain costs declared by a partner to an EU funded project. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission's grounds for not accepting the costs in question were reasonable. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 1977/2013/MDC on the European Commission’s assessment of an infringement complaint concerning restrictions to freedom of movement within the EU internal market

Vendredi | 25 septembre 2015

The complainant in this case, a Luxembourgish citizen, was excluded from competing for a post in France on the grounds that she is not a French national. The post in question was that of a non-presiding judge who was to represent the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at the French asylum Court. The complainant put it to the European Commission that the limiting of the post to French nationals appeared to be a breach of the provisions of EU law on the free movement of workers. When the Commission took the view that there was no infringement of EU law, the complainant contacted the Ombudsman.

The Commission took the view that an exception to the right of free movement of workers applied. This exception applies in the case of employment in the public service and is provided for in Article 45(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Commission acknowledged that a decision in this issue required a concrete assessment of the nature of the tasks and responsibilities of the non-presiding judge and it argued that it had made such an assessment. The Ombudsman noted that, as part of this assessment, the Commission had not contacted the French authorities in order to obtain further information about the post in question. The Ombudsman's initial proposal, therefore, was that the Commission should review its assessment of the infringement complaint and she suggested that the Commission should consult the French authorities. In replying to this proposal, the Commission maintained that it had sufficient information available to it when deciding the issue and that it was therefore unnecessary to contact the French authorities. Having considered its detailed reply to the proposal, the Ombudsman accepted that in this case the Commission did have sufficient information on which to base its decision. She therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration on the part of the Commission.

Décision dans l'affaire 45/2015/PMC - Les mesures prises par l’Office européen de lutte antifraude à la suite d’un rapport d'alerte éthique

Mardi | 11 août 2015

L’affaire concernait les mesures prises par l’OLAF à la suite d’un rapport d’alerte éthique dénonçant un lien entre l’Agence européenne de la sécurité aérienne (AESA) et le soupçon de manipulation d’un rapport sur la sûreté aérienne. La Médiatrice s’est inquiétée, en première analyse, de la décision apparemment prise par l’OLAF de ne pas se saisir de l’affaire et de la renvoyer à l’AESA, alors que le lanceur d’alerte avait délibérément choisi d’adresser son rapport à l’OLAF et non à l’AESA. Dans son évaluation préliminaire, la Médiatrice a estimé qu’une telle décision risquait de nuire, de manière générale, à l’efficacité du mécanisme d’alerte éthique. Elle a par conséquent décidé d’ouvrir une enquête.

L’examen des dossiers de l’OLAF a ensuite amené la Médiatrice à conclure que l’OLAF avait dûment évalué s’il convenait ou non d’ouvrir une enquête. Il est également apparu qu’en réalité, l’OLAF n’avait pas clôturé l’affaire, mais avait demandé à l’AESA de l’examiner et de lui communiquer les résultats de ses investigations. L’OLAF s’était en outre réservé le droit d’ouvrir une enquête officielle ultérieurement. Au vu de ces éléments, la Médiatrice a conclu que l’OLAF avait traité de manière appropriée le rapport d’alerte éthique transmis par le plaignant. La Médiatrice a toutefois indiqué que l’OLAF aurait dû expliquer plus clairement au plaignant que le renvoi de l’affaire à l’AESA ne signifiait pas que l’OLAF ne prendrait pas d’autres mesures. La Médiatrice a donc formulé une remarque complémentaire à ce sujet.

Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 995/2011/KM against the European Commission

Mardi | 30 juin 2015

The case concerned an infringement complaint submitted to the European Commission in relation to the alleged failure of Germany to implement properly certain provisions of the ePrivacy directive. The complainant turned to the European Ombudsman alleging that the Commission had failed to explain properly the reasons for not commencing an investigation. The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found that the Commission subsequently provided an adequate explanation in relation to some of the issues raised by the complainant. As regards the issues in relation to which the Commission did not provide an adequate explanation, the Ombudsman closed the case with a critical remark.

Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 400/2014/DK against the European Commission

Lundi | 08 juin 2015

The case concerned the European Commission's alleged failure to inform the complainant about the priority status of his State aid complaint.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue. In the course of her inquiry, the Commission informed the complainant that his complaint was not treated as a priority case. However, the Commission did not explain the reasons for its decision. The Ombudsman therefore closed the complaint with a critical remark concerning the Commission's failure to inform the complainant about why it had given a low priority status to his state aid complaint.

Décision du Médiateur européen clôturant son enquête sur la plainte 415/2014/FOR contre le Parlement européen

Lundi | 01 juin 2015

La plaignante travaille comme agent temporaire au Parlement européen. Elle est tombée malade pendant un congé annuel. L'affaire concerne le refus du Parlement de convertir le congé annuel de la plaignante en congé de maladie. La Médiatrice a enquêté sur cette affaire et n'a pas décelé de mauvaise administration étant donné que la plaignante était tenue d'indiquer l'on adresse à laquelle elle séjournait au moment où elle transmettait son certificat médical relatif au congé de maladie, ou peu de temps après. Cette obligation n'a pas été respectée.

Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 150/2015/DK against the European External Action Service

Jeudi | 07 mai 2015

The case concerned the evaluation of the complainant's proposal for a tender. In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant argued that the evaluation board wrongly evaluated its proposal as it failed to take into account the information provided therein.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the complainant did not show that the evaluators had made a manifest error of assessment as regards the aspects complained about. She therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 1136/2014/DK against the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

Mardi | 05 mai 2015

The case concerned EPSO's alleged failure to provide the complainant with a copy of the source text of the translation test and with the marked copies of his translation scripts in an open competition.

Given that the Civil Service Tribunal found, in a recent judgment, that selection boards do not need to give candidates the corrected version of their tests, the reasons why replies were erroneous, or the evaluation grids used for the written and oral tests, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint in order to allow EPSO to comment on the relevance of the Tribunal's findings on its recruitment proceedings.

During her inquiry, the Ombudsman found that EPSO had already enhanced the transparency of its selection procedures by the introduction of competency and skills-based tests, and of the competency passport. Furthermore, EPSO committed to developing a new procedure by 2016 that would allow candidates who do not receive a competency passport to obtain the selection board's reasoned decision, containing the board's comments on the quality of a candidate's translations.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration by EPSO.