Rechercher des enquêtes

L’affaire concernait la décision de la délégation de l’UE en Mauritanie de résilier un marché de services d’audit avec une société d’audit. La délégation a fait valoir que la société d’audit, qui avait son siège au Maroc, n’avait pas établi ses auditeurs en Mauritanie de manière permanente, en dépit de son obligation contractuelle. La délégation a également décidé de rejeter l’un des rapports d’audit soumis par la société parce qu’elle estimait que le rapport avait été signé par un membre du personnel non autorisé de cette société. La délégation a également refusé de payer la société pour les rapports restants.

La Médiatrice a mené une enquête approfondie. Elle a estimé que la décision de la délégation de rejeter le rapport d’audit et de résilier le marché n’était pas déraisonnable et ne constituait pas un cas de mauvaise administration. La Médiatrice n’a pas constaté de mauvaise administration dans la manière dont la délégation a géré la procédure ultérieure de règlement à l’amiable.

Toutefois, la manière dont la délégation a géré la communication avec le plaignant, notamment au regard de ses observations sur les projets de rapports d’audit et d’une absence d’explication claire de ses décisions, relevait de la mauvaise administration.

Étant donné que ces problèmes se sont posés il y a cinq ans, la Médiatrice a estimé qu’il serait inutile de formuler une recommandation sur cet aspect de la plainte.

 

The case concerned the way in which the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) carried out two selection procedures to recruit experts in the field of cybersecurity who would fit one or more of three profiles. The complainant took part in both procedures and raised concerns about the scoring methodology applied by ENISA and the inconsistency of the scores he received in one procedure.

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team noted that the scoring methodology used in both procedures put candidates applying for one or two profiles only at a disadvantage in comparison to those who applied for all three profiles. This was not clear in the vacancy notices. It also requested explanations to ENISA on the inconsistencies in the complainant’s scores.

ENISA acknowledged the inconsistencies in the scores received by the complainant and offered to invite him to the next stage of both selection procedures.

The Ombudsman found that, as ENISA has taken appropriate steps to remedy the issues raised by the complainant, no further inquiries are justified in this case and closed the inquiry.

The case concerned a selection procedure organised by the European Parliament to recruit ‘intercultural and language professionals’. The complainant considered that the score he received in the ‘talent evaluator’ stage of the procedure, which aimed to evaluate candidates’ qualifications and professional experience, did not represent an accurate assessment of his relevant professional experience and his studies in the field.

The Ombudsman found no manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s talent evaluator and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. She identified some elements for Parliament to consider in future procedures and drew Parliament’s attention to them.

The complainant, who used to work as an external IT expert for the European External Action Service (EEAS) through a contractor, was concerned that the EEAS had shown no flexibility and understanding with regard to his personal circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic. He took issue with how the EEAS had dealt with his request to work remotely (or ‘telework’) outside his place of work, as well as with how it had informed him about the imminent termination of his employment contract.  

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest that the EEAS had improperly managed the working relationship with the complainant. However, the Ombudsman found that how the EEAS had informed the complainant that it had asked for him to be replaced amounted to maladministration.

Given the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considered that a recommendation would serve no useful purpose and closed the inquiry by making suggestions for improvement to the EEAS.

The case concerned a procurement procedure for “light post editing services” organised by the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) and divided in different lots.

The complainant submitted a tender for one of the lots but the CdT rejected her offer, as it claimed that the complainant had not submitted documentary evidence for her professional experience. However, the complainant claimed that, according to the call for tenders, tenderers who had submitted tenders in previous procedures were not required to resubmit documentary evidence.

The Ombudsman found that the CdT provided contradictory information to tenderers as to whether they should resubmit supporting documents already provided in another procurement procedure. She therefore proposed as a solution that the CdT not renew the current framework contract for the specific lot at issue and, instead, carry out a new procurement procedure, providing greater clarity as to what documents tenderers are expected to submit.

The CdT informed the Ombudsman that it did not renew the framework contracts for that lot. The CdT added that it has revised the wording of the documentation used in procurement procedures to provide greater clarity for tenderers. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding that the solution proposal had been accepted.

The complainant took part in two selection procedures for contract staff, organised by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) in 2018 and 2019. He was dissatisfied with how Frontex dealt with his administrative complaint about the evaluation of his application in the 2018 selection procedure, in which he was unsuccessful. He also complained that Frontex had failed to reply to his request for feedback regarding the 2019 selection procedure.

In the course of the inquiry, Frontex provided the complainant with feedback regarding the 2019 selection procedure. As regards the 2018 selection procedure, the Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how Frontex had assessed the complainant’s application. However, the Ombudsman considered that Frontex had not dealt with the complainant’s administrative complaint in an entirely satisfactory manner.

Given that the inquiry revealed no manifest error of assessment, the Ombudsman considered that no additional inquiries would be justified into that aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman suggested, however, that Frontex improve how it communicates to applicants the redress possibilities in the context of its staff selection procedures, as well as how it processes and keeps records of complaints by unsuccessful applicants.

The case concerned the status of an individual on the Contract Agent Selection Tool database (CAST database), from which EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies may recruit contract agent staff. The complainant had passed the selection tests and was included in the database, which is administered by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), but she was mistakenly indicated as ‘recruited’ for a period of more than four years.

The Ombudsman found that the complainant may have lost out on the opportunity to be recruited by EU institutions using the CAST database during that period. The Ombudsman proposed to EPSO, as a solution, that it extend the validity of the complainant’s status in the database for the same amount of time as the time during which she had been mistakenly marked as recruited. EPSO accepted the proposal.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that EPSO had settled the issue. To prevent such issues occurring in the future, she suggested that EPSO take action to ensure that, every time a candidate’s status in the CAST database is changed, they receive an automatic email informing them of the change.

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.

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.