Imate li pritužbu protiv
institucije ili tijela EU-a?

Preporuke

Prikazuju se 1 - 10 od 290 rezultata

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 1708/2015/ANA on the European Commission’s refusal to grant public access to documents related to the use of GMOs as food or feed

Ponedjeljak | 03 rujna 2018

This case, brought by Greenpeace, concerns the Commission's refusal to grant public access to documents taken into account by the Commission when preparing its proposal to amend EU legislation on the use of GMOs as food or feed.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission’s refusal to give full public access to the requested documents is not in line with Regulation 1049/2001.

This constitutes maladministration. The Ombudsman recommends that the Commission give full access to the documents in question.

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 934/2018/RM on the European Commission’s failure to deal with a request for access to briefing documents for the Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources within an acceptable time frame

Četvrtak | 31 svibnja 2018

The case concerned a request for access to briefing documents prepared for meetings of the Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources and his advisors with third parties. The Commission has not taken a decision on the request after more than a year.

In the course of the inquiry, the Commission indicated that it was still not in a position to take a decision. The Ombudsman found that this delay constituted maladministration, and recommended that the Commission take a decision without delay and provide the complainant with a list of all the documents covered by his request.  

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in joint cases 488/2018/KR and 514/2018/KR on the European Commission’s appointment of a new Secretary-General

Utorak | 08 svibnja 2018

Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman [1]

Following two complaints to her office, the Ombudsman conducted an inquiry into how Mr Martin Selmayr, the then Head of Cabinet [2] of the President of the European Commission, was appointed Secretary-General of the Commission in February 2018.

The outgoing Secretary-General, Mr Italianer, who had indicated his intention to retire to President Juncker in 2018 when he was first appointed in 2015, was replaced by Mr Selmayr without a competition and without any formal consideration of other candidates. As the vacancy was not published, no other candidates could apply.

This was not unprecedented. However in order to be fully eligible for such a direct reassignment, Mr Selmayr first had to apply to become Deputy Secretary-General. Such a position became vacant in January 2018, shortly after the then Secretary-General had confirmed to the Commission President his decision to retire in March 2018. This information was known at that time only by the President and by Mr Selmayr.

Mr Selmayr and another member of the Cabinet were the only two applicants for Deputy Secretary-General. The other member withdrew before the process was completed. Preparatory steps for appointing Mr Selmayr as Secretary-General were already being taken one day before the formal completion of the selection process for Deputy Secretary-General.

On Wednesday, 21 February 2018, the College of Commissioners approved the appointment of Mr Selmayr first as Deputy Secretary-General and then his reassignment as Secretary-General just minutes later, following the announcement during the meeting that the then Secretary-General would step down in March. The retirement of Mr Italianer had not been on the agenda.

Based on the inspection of Commission documents, the Ombudsman inquiry has identified several issues of concern:

  • Mr Selmayr did not recuse himself in January 2018 from the decision-making that led to the creation of the vacancy, and the approval of the vacancy notice, for the post of Deputy Secretary-General, despite the fact that it is highly likely he knew that he would apply for the post and later did so.
  • At that point Mr Selmayr had to recuse himself from taking part in the Consultative Committee on Appointments (CCA), which interviews and gives an opinion on the merits of candidates. However, contrary to the applicable binding rules, no replacement was appointed.
  • Documentary evidence of the sequencing of events shows that the Deputy Secretary-General appointment procedure was not undertaken to fill that post, but rather to make Mr Selmayr eligible for his immediate reassignment as the new Secretary-General.
  • When valid concerns were raised in relation to how the surprise double-appointments were made, the Commission reacted in an evasive, defensive and legalistic manner, which served further to increase concerns.

The European Parliament debated the issue and passed a resolution in plenary on 18 April 2018. Given the facts of the inquiry, the Ombudsman agrees with its assessment that the affair damaged trust in EU institutions and that the double-appointments “stretched and possibly even overstretched the limits of the law”.

Based on her inquiry, the Ombudsman now recommends that the Commission develop a specific appointment procedure for Secretary-General, separate from the procedure for other senior appointments.

[1] Decision of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of Ombudsman's duties (94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom), OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15.

[2] The French term “Cabinet” is frequently used to describe the private offices of Commissioners.

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 1641/2015/ZA on the European Personnel Selection Office’s refusal to allow the complainant to apply to two concurrent competitions for recruiting translators and failure to explain the reasons for applying this practice

Utorak | 19 prosinca 2017

Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1] The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) practice of not permitting candidates to apply for more than one concurrent recruitment competition for EU civil servants even where they fulfilled the criteria. EPSO refused to allow the complainant to submit applications to two concurrent competitio...

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 1336/2017/JAS on the European Commission’s refusal to grant access to its catalogue of nanomaterials used in cosmetics, as well as to related notifications from cosmetics manufacturers

Utorak | 03 listopada 2017

Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1] The case concerned a request for public access to a catalogue of nanomaterials used in cosmetic products and to related notifications made by cosmetics manufacturers. The European Commission, which had not completed the catalogue on time, argued that no such document existed when the complainant, an environmental NGO,...

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 1676/2017/KM on the European Commission’s handling of requests for access to documents on how it deals with and tries to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of its documents

Srijeda | 27 rujna 2017

Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1] The case concerned two requests for access that the complainant made in February and March 2017. One was for documents on security inquiries conducted by the Commission into possible security breaches (“leaks”) and the other for minutes of weekly meetings of the heads of cabinet and the directors general relating to t...

Recommendations of the European Ombudsman in case 2024/2014/ANA on the European Commission’s recovery of EU funds

Ponedjeljak | 31 srpnja 2017

Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1] The complainant is the owner of a Croatian company, which was part of a consortium that carried out an EU-funded project. Based on the findings of an audit carried out after the project was concluded, the European Commission sought to recover funds totalling more than the amount the complainant had received. The compl...

Recommendation in case 1239/2014/PMC on the handling by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of a “coordination case”

Srijeda | 26 srpnja 2017

Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1] OLAF has a mandate to assist national authorities to investigate suspected fraud involving EU funds. In 2010, a public prosecutor in Germany asked OLAF to assist in the investigation of suspected fraud related to the award of EU funds for the construction of a port and a hotel. Eventually, on the basis of information ...

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 1333/2015/MDC concerning the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to exclude the complainant from a competition on the grounds that his diploma was not relevant

Ponedjeljak | 17 srpnja 2017

The complainant in this case was excluded in 2013 from a competition to recruit administrators in the field of audit run by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO). He was excluded on the basis that his academic qualifications were not sufficiently relevant to the post advertised. The complainant pointed out that several candidates who had been admitted to the 2010 edition of the same compe...

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 2030/2015/PL on the European Medicines Agency’s refusal to disclose the name of a company that made a request for public access to periodic safety update reports

Petak | 07 srpnja 2017

Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1] The case concerns the refusal of the European Medicines Agency to disclose the name of a company that asked for public access to the latest ‘periodic safety update report’ on the drug Zyclara. The complainant is the pharmaceutical company that markets Zyclara. EMA stated that it is its policy since 2015 not to release...