Rechercher des enquêtes

The case concerned the decision by the European Commission to recover EU funds granted under a contract for the provision of technical assistance in Gabon. The complainant considered that the cost of the protective measures it had adopted when the ‘contracting authority’ suspended the contract should have been added to the price of the contract, and thus covered by EU funds. The complainant also claimed that, as the amount recovered by the Commission was equivalent to the amount owed to the complainant by the contracting authority for the protective measures, the Commission should have offset the amount it sought to recover by this amount.

The Ombudsman considered that there was a sound legal basis for the Commission’s decision, and that it was reasonable for the Commission to recover the funds. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

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.

This decision is not published as there is a risk that the complainant may be identified from the specific circumstances of the case.

The complainant, a national police force, received two grants from the European Commission for projects to fight transnational crime, which it carried out successfully. Following audits of the projects, the Commission found that a big part of the costs were ineligible mainly due to the lack of supporting documents. The Commission therefore decided to recover a considerable part of the grants. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman arguing that the decision was disproportionate and that the Commission had not shown flexibility. The complainant considered that the Commission should have allowed it more time to send additional supporting documents and that it should have done another audit.

The Ombudsman found that it was reasonable for the Commission to conclude that the complainant had violated its contractual obligations under the ‘grant agreement’. The Commission had acted in accordance with EU financial rules and given the complainant ample opportunity to provide comments and submit additional supporting documents as proof of the costs it claimed. The Commission had also shown flexibility by agreeing to review supporting documents submitted late. The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The complainant worked as an expert for an external contractor to the EU Delegation to Ghana. Not having been paid for her work, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman, claiming that the EU Delegation had failed to ensure that the external contractor respects its obligations towards the experts.

The Ombudsman found that both the EU Delegation and the European Commission had acted in accordance with the applicable rules when withholding some payments under the contract. She also found that they had taken appropriate action vis-a-vis the contractor to try to resolve the situation that affected the complainant. The Ombudsman considers that the Commission has adequate mechanisms in place to monitor contractors, and she trusts the Commission will use these mechanisms to monitor the situation and to take action within its remit if needed.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

La plainte portait sur la décision du Service européen pour l’action extérieure de ne pas verser d’indemnité de départ à une employée retraitée de la délégation de l’UE en Algérie. La délégation s’était exprimée en faveur du versement de l’indemnité, en faisant valoir que telle avait été la pratique sur la base d’une note administrative.

La Médiatrice européenne a enquêté sur cette affaire et jugé que l’employée en question ne pouvait se prévaloir d’aucune «attente légitime», au sens juridique, à recevoir une indemnité de départ. Elle a donc clos l’affaire en concluant à l’absence de mauvaise administration. La Médiatrice européenne a cependant fait observer qu’il était regrettable que le SEAE n’ait pas communiqué d’informations claires et cohérentes au personnel au sujet des règles applicables aux personnes en question. À cause de ce manque de clarté, l’employée concernée a mal compris la situation. Le SEAE étant en train de supprimer progressivement cette catégorie de personnel, la Médiatrice ne donnera pas d’autre suite à cette question. Elle espère toutefois que le SEAE veillera dans l’intervalle à clarifier les conditions d’emploi applicables aux personnes en question.

The case concerned a recruitment procedure organised by the University of Ljubljana as part of an EU-funded project, under the Horizon 2020 programme. The complainant claimed that irregularities occurred in the recruitment procedure, and reported this to the Research Executive Agency (REA), which is responsible for the implementation of the programme. Dissatisfied with how REA dealt with his complaint, he turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman found that REA investigated the issue and advised the university on steps to take to address certain shortcomings it had identified. The university followed REA’s advice.

The Ombudsman therefore found that REA dealt appropriately with the matter and closed the case, finding no maladministration.