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

Rechercher des enquêtes

Affichage 1 - 20 des 97 résultats

Decision on the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) decision not to allow a candidate in COVID-19 quarantine to reschedule a test (case 2223/2021/ABZ)

Mercredi | 18 janvier 2023

The case concerned the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to allow a candidate, who was placed in COVID-19 quarantine, to reschedule her test in the context of a selection procedure for contract agent staff (CAST Permanent selection procedure).

The Ombudsman found that EPSO provided reasonable explanations as to why it was not able to provide an alternative testing date to the complainant. On that basis, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding that there was no maladministration by EPSO.

Decision on how the European Commission dealt with a request to extend the deadline for a retired staff member to request the ‘resettlement allowance’ (complaint 1428/2021/FA)

Lundi | 07 novembre 2022

The case concerns the European Commission‘s refusal to extend the time limit for a retired staff member to request the resettlement allowance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The complainant argued that due to the outbreak of the pandemic, she was not able to organise her resettlement to her place of origin within the prescribed time limit and asked the Commission to grant her an extension. 

The Ombudsman found that the decision of the Commission is in line with the Staff Regulations and EU case-law. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 964/2020/JN on how the European Commission evaluated a tender in a public procurement procedure for the translation of a report on the judicial reform in Cyprus

Mardi | 11 mai 2021

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.