Rechercher des enquêtes

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to recover over EUR 420 000 in unused funds from a consultancy that carried out an EU-funded programme on justice reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The EU funds had been deposited in a local bank, which subsequently became insolvent.

The consultancy argued that the Commission had no right to hold it liable for the unused funds that had become unavailable because of the bank’s insolvency. Furthermore, it considered that it had not been given the opportunity to express its views during the audit and recovery procedures and that it had not acted negligently.

The Commission argued that the consultancy had been given the opportunity to express its views but did not provide comments. The Commission further considered that the complainant should take legal action against the bank to get the funds released as part of the liquidation procedure.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into whether the Commission’s decision to recover the unavailable funds from the complainant was reasonable. She was not satisfied that the Commission had acted in accordance with the principles of good administration and proposed as a solution that it reconsider its decision that the complainant bear the risk for the insolvency of the local bank in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The Commission did not agree with the Ombudsman’s assessment but stated that, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, it was ready to give the complainant a new opportunity to provide information that might allow the Commission to open an amicable settlement aimed at partially sharing the economic burden of the lost funds.

The Ombudsman welcomes the Commission’s willingness to look into an amicable solution with a view to sharing the burden of the loss of the funds with the complainant. She considers that the complainant has provided the necessary information.

Thus, the Ombudsman closed the case as further inquiries would not result in a more satisfactory outcome for the complainant. To try to avoid similar situations arising in future, she made three suggestions for improvement.

The case concerned a negative performance evaluation that an EU civilian mission gave to a seconded staff member. The staff member complained that the evaluation had been unfair because her line managers had not warned her that her performance at work had been poor. She also said that the evaluation report failed to take into account the fact that she had been absent for a long period of time. She claimed that the mission did not handle her appeal against the evaluation fairly.

Based on the inquiry the Ombudsman found nothing to suggest that the evaluation was unfair. She also found that the mission handled the complainant’s appeal in line with the applicable procedures. She therefore closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration.

Le plaignant, une association à but non lucratif, est partenaire d’un projet financé par l’Union au titre du programme Horizon 2020 de l’UE, géré par l’Agence exécutive pour la recherche (REA). Il avait une dette à l’égard de la Commission européenne, qu’il remboursait par tranches. La Commission a décidé de compenser le montant du «préfinancement», qui aurait dû être versé au plaignant au début du projet, sur l’encours de la dette du plaignant envers la Commission. Le plaignant a accepté de poursuivre ses activités dans le cadre du projet, mais s’est tourné vers la Médiatrice pour rechercher une autre solution.

La Médiatrice a estimé que la Commission était légalement tenue de compenser le montant du préfinancement et qu’elle en avait informé le plaignant et le coordinateur du projet en temps utile. Le plaignant avait décidé de son plein gré de participer au projet dans ces conditions. La Médiatrice a par conséquent clos le dossier en concluant à l’absence de mauvaise administration. Elle a néanmoins proposé des améliorations à la Commission et à la REA portant sur le besoin, à l’avenir, d’une meilleure communication avec les partenaires de projets.

La plainte concernait le refus de la Commission européenne de suspendre une enquête antidumping sur les importations de produits en aluminium chinois ou, à titre subsidiaire, de donner à un importateur italien davantage de temps pour répondre aux demandes d’informations que la Commission lui avait adressées.

La Médiatrice a fait observer que la Commission avait déjà prolongé les délais pour tenir compte des difficultés posées par la crise de la COVID-19. Une prolongation supplémentaire des délais aurait pu compromettre la capacité de la Commission à respecter son obligation de mener à bien l’enquête antidumping dans le cadre des délais légaux, qui ont un caractère contraignant pour elle. Dès lors, la Médiatrice a estimé que la Commission avait agi raisonnablement et elle a clôturé l’affaire en concluant à l’absence de mauvaise administration.

The complainant, a young Italian entrepreneur, participated in an exchange with a more experienced entrepreneur in Germany in the context of the ‘Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs programme’ set up by the EU Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME). The exchange was terminated early. The complainant considered that EASME had failed to monitor the exchange and he wished to be compensated financially. EASME allowed the complainant another exchange for the remaining period, but it did not grant him any financial compensation.

The Ombudsman found that EASME had investigated the case diligently and that its decision not to pay compensation was in accordance with the rules governing the programmes. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. The Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement to EASME for the purpose of ensuring that the entrepreneurs involved are duly informed of the intention to terminate an exchange early.