Rechercher des enquêtes

Le plaignant était préoccupé par le fait que la plupart des informations figurant sur le site web de l’Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA) n'étaient disponibles qu’en anglais.

Dans le cadre de l’enquête, la Médiatrice a rappelé à l’EMA ses recommandations servant à guider l’administration de l’Union sur l’emploi des langues officielles de l’UE pour communiquer avec le public.

L’EMA a informé la Médiatrice qu’elle travaillait à l’élaboration d’une politique linguistique et d’une interface multilingue pour son site web.

La Médiatrice a salué l’intention de l’EMA de traiter la question et a clos l’enquête, en lui recommandant de traduire rapidement cet engagement dans les faits. Elle lui a également suggéré, dans l’intervalle, de s’atteler à accroître la visibilité des informations essentielles publiées sur son site web dans toutes les langues officielles de l’UE.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of international cooperation.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications and, therefore, closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned how EPSO assessed the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of audit.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board had examined the replies provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the selection criteria. The Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s application, and therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

L’affaire concernait une pratique de la Banque européenne d’investissement (BEI) consistant à demander aux candidats à un emploi de fournir des données à caractère personnel sensibles, particulièrement celles en rapport avec leur situation familiale, avant les entretiens d’embauche de la BEI.

La Médiatrice a reconnu que la BEI avait mis en place cette pratique pour optimiser l’efficacité de ses procédures. Cependant, la Médiatrice s’est dite préoccupée par le fait que la collecte de données à caractère personnel était disproportionnée et risquait de saper la confiance dans les procédures d’embauche de la BEI. Tous les candidats ne seraient pas nécessairement rassurés de savoir que les données à caractère personnel n’influencent en aucun cas leurs probabilités d’obtenir le poste.

La BEI a répondu qu’elle avait modifié ses pratiques pour répondre aux inquiétudes soulevées par la Médiatrice.

La Médiatrice a salué la réponse constructive de la BEI et a clôturé l’enquête.

The case was about how the European Parliament dealt with two traineeship applications from a person who requested special arrangements for his applications due to dyslexia.

After first having rejected the complainant’s application, Parliament decided to interview him and offered him a traineeship. As the complainant had a long absence from his traineeship for medical reasons, Parliament offered him the possibility to apply again. However, Parliament rejected the complainant’s new application.

The complainant took issue with how Parliament handled his traineeship applications and with how it informed him that he could reapply for a traineeship.

The Ombudsman finds that Parliament should have been clearer in its communication with the complainant regarding the possibility to apply for a second traineeship. However, she finds no maladministration in how Parliament dealt with the complainant’s traineeship applications. Similarly, the fact that Parliament deals with requests for special arrangements made by traineeship candidates on a case-by-case basis is a reasonable approach.

The Ombudsman makes a suggestion for improvement to Parliament regarding how it informs traineeship candidates of the possibility to request special assistance in the context of the application and selection procedure and of how they should make such a request.

The case concerned a new insurance policy that the European Commission concluded with a private insurance company to provide accident and sickness insurance for Conference Interpreting Agents (ACIs).

The complainant is a former ACI who considered that the conditions of the new insurance policy were very disadvantageous compared to the previous policy, and that it discriminated against certain ACIs.

During the inquiry, it became clear that the complainant would be less disadvantaged than he had feared. The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s explanations for the changes in the policy are convincing and reasonable. The inquiry also uncovered no evidence that would call into question the procedure leading to the new insurance contract, which included consultation with the international interpreters’ association.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by the Commission.