The case concerned how the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) handled a complaint by a staff member hired through an external contractor, alleging psychological harassment by their supervisor.

The Ombudsman found that EUSPA took the allegations seriously, opened an administrative inquiry, interviewed relevant persons and witnesses, and reached a conclusion following that inquiry. EUSPA thereby followed the procedural framework in place. The Ombudsman found no indication of a manifest error of assessment and thus no maladministration in EUSPA’s handling of the harassment complaint.

The Ombudsman nevertheless made a suggestion to EUSPA to develop better methods of communication for this type of harassment complaint, to ensure that persons not covered by the procedural safeguards in the EU Staff Regulations receive clear and consistent information throughout the procedure, including proper reasoning when the procedure is closed.

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) handled a complaint by a staff member hired through an external contractor, alleging psychological harassment by their supervisor.

The Ombudsman found that EUSPA took the allegations seriously, opened an administrative inquiry, interviewed relevant persons and witnesses, and reached a conclusion following that inquiry. EUSPA thereby followed the procedural framework in place. The Ombudsman found no indication of a manifest error of assessment and thus no maladministration in EUSPA’s handling of the harassment complaint.

The Ombudsman nevertheless made a suggestion to EUSPA to develop better methods of communication for this type of harassment complaint, to ensure that persons not covered by the procedural safeguards in the EU Staff Regulations receive clear and consistent information throughout the procedure, including proper reasoning when the procedure is closed.

The case concerned how the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) handled the complainant’s reinstatement following a period of leave on personal grounds. The complainant considered that EMSA had failed to reinstate her at the earliest possible opportunity after she requested to return to work in 2022 and argued that, as a consequence, her seniority and salary step should be recalculated as if she had been reinstated from that date.

The Ombudsman found that EMSA had assessed the complainant’s suitability for all relevant vacancies that arose during the period concerned and had given her the priority consideration required under the applicable rules. The Ombudsman found no evidence of a manifest error in EMSA’s assessment that those vacancies were not suitable for the complainant and therefore no basis to conclude that her reinstatement had been wrongly delayed. The inquiry nevertheless highlighted the importance of clear information, regular follow-up and robust documentation in cases where reinstatement following leave on personal grounds is delayed.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. At the same time, the Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement that EMSA should ensure that staff members requesting leave on personal grounds exceeding six months are clearly informed of the potential risks of a delayed reinstatement and that staff members awaiting reinstatement receive regular updates on how their profiles are being assessed against available vacancies.

Is cuideachta Pholannach é an gearánach atá faoi réir imscrúdú ag an Oifig Eorpach Frith-Chalaoise (OLAF) ar chalaois fhéideartha i gcoinne bhuiséad an Aontais. Chuir an gearánach ábhair imní in iúl maidir leis an gcaoi a ndearna OLAF ‘seiceáil ar an láthair’ ar áitreabh an ghearánaigh. Go háirithe, d’áitigh an gearánach an méid seo a leanas: nár cuireadh a bhord bainistíochta ar an eolas faoin gcigireacht; nár thug duine de ‘imscrúdaitheoirí’ OLAF a rinne an tseiceáil cruthúnas leordhóthanach ar a chéannacht i gcomhthéacs dhlí na Polainne; nárbh fhéidir barántúlacht údarú OLAF chun an tseiceáil a dhéanamh a fhíorú; agus léirigh na himscrúdaitheoirí claontacht i gcoinne an ghearánaigh.

Níor aimsigh an tOmbudsman aon drochriarachán sa chaoi a ndearna OLAF an tseiceáil ar an láthair.

Bhain an cás leis an gcaoi ar dhéileáil an Coimisiún Eorpach le gearán maidir le sárú faoin gcaoi a n-asbhaineann an Fhrainc ranníocaíochtaí slándála sóisialta ó phinsin pinsinéirí na hEilvéise atá ina gcónaí sa Fhrainc. D’áitigh an gearánach gur bhain an Coimisiún míbhrí as an ngearán agus gur theip air aghaidh a thabhairt ar na saincheisteanna a ardaíodh.

Chinn an tOmbudsman gur theip ar an gCoimisiún an gearán um shárú a láimhseáil i gceart. Trí ghearán an ghearánaigh a áireamh i nós imeachta um shárú atá ar siúl faoi láthair, i gcomhthéacs nós imeachta EU Pilot, níor thug an Coimisiún aghaidh ar na saincheisteanna sonracha a d’ardaigh an gearánach. Mar sin féin, ós rud é gur thug an Coimisiún aghaidh ar na saincheisteanna a d’ardaigh an gearánach i gcomhthéacs gearáin eile, chinn an tOmbudsman nach raibh údar le tuilleadh fiosrúchán sa chás seo.

Chun cosc a chur ar shaincheisteanna den sórt sin teacht chun cinn amach anseo, mhol an tOmbudsman, má chinneann an Coimisiún gearán a chur le nós imeachta leanúnach um shárú, go háirithe i gcomhthéacs nós imeachta EU Pilot, gur cheart dó a áirithiú go dtabharfaidh sé aghaidh go leordhóthanach ar na saincheisteanna sonracha a ardaíodh sa ghearán sin.

Bhí imní ar na gearánaigh, grúpa d’eagraíochtaí na sochaí sibhialta, nach ndearna an Coimisiún Eorpach measúnú ar rioscaí do chearta an duine sular thug sé tacaíocht do thíortha na hAfraice chun cumais faireachais a fhorbairt, go háirithe i gcomhthéacs Chiste Iontaobhais Éigeandála an Aontais Eorpaigh don Afraic (EUTFA). D’áitigh na gearánaigh, sular aontaigh sé tacú le tionscadail a bhféadfadh impleachtaí faireachais a bheith acu, amhail bunachair sonraí bhithmhéadracha nó teicneolaíochtaí faireacháin fón póca, gur cheart don Choimisiún measúnuithe riosca agus tionchair a dhéanamh roimh ré chun a áirithiú nach mbeidh sáruithe ar chearta an duine (amhail an ceart chun príobháideachais) mar thoradh ar na tionscadail.

Bunaithe ar an bhfiosrúchán, tháinig an tOmbudsman ar an gconclúid nár leor na bearta a bhí i bhfeidhm chun a áirithiú go ndearnadh measúnú ceart ar thionchar thionscadail EUFTA ar chearta an duine. Chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar na heasnaimh a shainaithin sí, rinne an tOmbudsman moladh maidir le feabhsúchán chun a áirithiú, i gcás tionscadail de chuid Chiste Iontaobhais an Aontais amach anseo, go ndéanfar measúnú tionchair ar chearta an duine roimh ré.

Bhain an cás le faisnéis a chuir an Coimisiún Eorpach ar fáil maidir le stádas dhá ghearán um shárú.

Chinn an tOmbudsman go bhféadfadh an Coimisiún faisnéis níos cuimsithí a sholáthar maidir le stádas ceann de na gearáin, go háirithe i ndáil leis an ‘nós imeachta ilghearán’ leanúnach lena gcumhdaítear cuid de na saincheisteanna a ardaíodh sa ghearán sin. Dhéileáil sé leis na gearáin ar bhealach réasúnta, áfach.

Dhún an tOmbudsman an fiosrúchán le cinneadh nach raibh aon drochriarachán i gceist.