Rechercher des enquêtes

The case concerned the European Commission´s decision to reject a tender in a public procurement procedure for the translation of a report on the judicial reform in Cyprus. The complainant considered that the Commission had been wrong in rejecting his tender because it considered he did not meet the specifications for the required experience. In the complainant’s view, the Commission should have asked him for clarifications.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission acted reasonably, and closed the inquiry finding no maladministration. She trusts that, going forward, the Commission will ensure that unsuccessful tenderers receive an adequate explanation of the reasons why their tender has been rejected, without having to ask for clarification.

L’affaire concernait la création, en vertu de la législation de l’Union sur les déchets, d’une nouvelle base de données européenne d’informations sur les substances préoccupantes contenues dans des articles (base de données SCIP). La plaignante, une association professionnelle européenne, estimait que l’ensemble des informations obligatoires à présenter par les fournisseurs d’articles à l’Agence européenne des produits chimiques (ECHA) allait au-delà de ce qui est exigé dans la législation de l’Union sur les produits chimiques.

La plainte concerne l’interprétation de plusieurs dispositions contenues dans la législation de l’Union sur les déchets et les produits chimiques. Selon la Médiatrice, la Commission et l’ECHA ont adopté une interprétation raisonnable des dispositions concernées. Le fait que l’interprétation de la plaignante soit différente ne permet pas d’affirmer que l’interprétation de la Commission et de l’ECHA est erronée. Il appartient à une juridiction de déterminer l’interprétation correcte en cas de litige. La Médiatrice n’a donc constaté aucune mauvaise administration et a clôturé l’affaire.

The case concerned the European Commission´s decision to reject almost EUR 50 000 in the context of an EU-funded project supporting education in Somalia.

The Ombudsman made the preliminary finding that the Commission´s decision was not fair. She made a corresponding proposal for a solution.

The Commission disagreed with the Ombudsman´s proposal and provided additional explanations for its position. The grant agreement, it said, contains a list of non-eligible costs including salary costs of the personnel of national administrations, at issue here. Declaring the costs eligible, although they are clearly ineligible, could create a precedent that the rules in question can be circumvented. In light of these and further explanations, the Ombudsman reached the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified. The grant agreement, read as a whole, supports the Commission´s position sufficiently.

However, the Ombudsman considered it regrettable that an organisation that successfully carried out a project in good faith and incurred the costs in question, should find itself in this situation. She suggested that the Commission consider how it could improve the clarity of the information in its ‘grant agreements’ with entities selected to carry out EU-funded projects, to avoid similar cases arising in the future.

The case concerned the ‘School Education Gateway’, an online platform for school education that is funded by Erasmus+, the EU's programme to support education, training, youth and sport in Europe. The complainant is the owner and manager of an education and training provider, which offered courses on the platform.  

The European Commission, which is responsible for the programme, suspended the complainant’s company after it had established that the complainant’s company had repeatedly violated the platform’s terms and conditions.

The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found that the Commission’s actions were reasonable and proportionate. She therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

L’affaire concerne le refus de l’Office des publications de l’Union européenne de publier un avis de marché au Journal officiel de l’Union européenne au motif que celui-ci était rédigé dans plus d’une langue. Le plaignant, qui travaille pour une fondation culturelle belge, soutenait que l’Office des publications ne lui avait pas précisé le fondement juridique de son refus.

Au cours de l’enquête de la Médiatrice, l’Office des publications a précisé le fondement juridique de son refus de publier l’avis de la plaignante. Il a également expliqué comment il procédait lorsqu’il était confronté à ce type de situation.

La Médiatrice a clôturé l’enquête en concluant que l’Office des publications avait réglé l’aspect de la plainte relatif au fondement juridique de son refus de publier l’avis de marché. La Médiatrice a également estimé que les explications fournies par l’Office sur la manière dont il procède lorsqu’il est confronté à une situation de cette nature ne permettaient pas de conclure à un cas de mauvaise administration. La Médiatrice a formulé une proposition d’amélioration afin que les exigences linguistiques soient clairement exposées sur le site internet de l’Office des publications.

The complainant applied for a traineeship at the European Commission and was asked to submit supporting documents. When she checked her online application account, she noticed that the deadline set for doing so had already expired by six months. When she logged in again, one week later, she learned that the actual deadline had expired earlier that day. Dissatisfied with the Commission’s decision to exclude her from the selection procedure, she turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman finds it regrettable that the Commission initially gave an incorrect deadline in the application accounts. While the Commission corrected the error within 15 minutes, it was alerted to the fact that some candidates had seen it. As such, it should have sent a notification to all candidates about the correct deadline.

At the same time, the complainant herself was required to check her application account at least twice a week and, in this case, failed to do so. It was therefore reasonable for the Commission not to accept her supporting documents. The Ombudsman closes the case, welcoming the steps the Commission has taken to avoid similar mistakes happening in the future.