Rechercher des enquêtes

The case concerned information provided by the European Commission about the status of two infringement complaints.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission could have provided more comprehensive information about the status of one of the complaints, notably in relation to the ongoing ‘multiple complaints procedure’ covering some of the issues raised in that complaint. However, it dealt with the complaints in a reasonable manner.

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

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.

Les plaignants, un groupe d’organisations de la société civile, s’inquiétaient du fait que la Commission européenne n’avait pas évalué les risques en matière de droits de l’homme avant d’aider les pays africains à développer leurs capacités de surveillance, notamment dans le cadre du fonds fiduciaire d’urgence de l’UE pour l’Afrique. Les plaignants ont affirmé qu’avant d’accepter de soutenir des projets ayant des incidences potentielles en matière de surveillance, comme des bases de données biométriques ou des technologies de surveillance des téléphones portables, la Commission aurait dû procéder au préalable à des analyses de risques et d’impact afin de veiller à ce que les projets n’entraînent pas de violations des droits de l’homme (comme le droit au respect de la vie privée).

Sur la base de l’enquête, la Médiatrice a conclu que les mesures en vigueur n’étaient pas suffisantes pour garantir l’évaluation correcte de l’incidence des projets au titre du fonds fiduciaire d’urgence de l’UE pour l’Afrique sur les droits de l’homme. Pour remédier aux lacunes qu’elle a recensées, la Médiatrice a formulé une proposition d’amélioration visant à garantir, pour les futurs projets du fonds fiduciaire de l’UE, la réalisation au préalable d’une évaluation de l’incidence sur les droits de l’homme.

The case concerned how the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) evaluated tenders in two procurement procedures for the provision of translation services. The complainant argued that the CdT was inconsistent in its evaluation, given that it had assessed its tenders differently in the past. It also argued that the CdT had wrongly assessed the complainant’s tenders against two criteria set out in the calls for tenders.

The Ombudsman found that the CdT correctly followed the methodology it put in place for assessing the tenders in the two procedures. She also took the view that there was no indication of a manifest error in how the CdT assessed the complainant’s tenders.

On that basis, the Ombudsman considered that there was no maladministration by the CdT and she closed the case. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman trusts that the CdT will provide more detailed information to tenderers about its assessment in future procedures, as clearer information at an early stage may reduce the risk of complaints such as the one that led to this inquiry.