Imate li pritužbu protiv institucije ili tijela EU-a?

Pretraživanje istraga

Pretraživanje teksta

Vrsta dokumenta

Predmetna institucija

Vrsta rješenja

Broj slučaja

Jezik

Raspon datuma

Ključne riječi

Ili pokušajte sa starim ključnim riječima (prije 2016.)

Ostala prava i dužnosti posljedice su Pravilnika o osoblju i nisu obuhvaćeni ovim popisom

Prikazuju se 1 - 20 od 63 rezultata

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

Utorak | 17 srpnja 2018

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 apply under two concurrent competitions for recruiting translators for the EU institutions, and failed to convincingly explain the reasons for applying this practice.

The Ombudsman found that this practice could have the consequence of hindering the recruitment of the most qualified persons and that, accordingly, EPSO should be able to provide convincing reasoning as to why it has this practice. The Ombudsman found that EPSO´s failure to provide such reasoning to the complainant constituted maladministration. She found also that any continuation of the practice, in the absence of solid reasoning, would necessarily also constitute maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore recommended to EPSO that it immediately review its policy in relation to this practice.

In response, EPSO set up an internal reflection group to conduct a detailed impact assessment of any policy change in this area. The assessment will be presented to EPSO's Management Board by December 2018. The Board must take the final decision. As EPSO is acting on her recommendation, the Ombudsman has decided to close the case.

Decision in case 515/2016/JAP on the European Asylum Support Office’s probationary assessment of a temporary agent

Petak | 28 travnja 2017

The case concerned the assessment of the probationary period of a temporary agent at the European Asylum Support Office (‘EASO’). The complainant, who was dismissed at the end of her probationary period, argued that there were a number of procedural shortcomings in her assessment. Moreover, the EASO failed to reply to her complaints made under the EU Staff Regulations.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and requested the EASO to reply to the complaints. She found that the EASO had taken the necessary steps to ensure an impartial assessment of the complainant’s probationary period and had respected the complainant’s right to be heard before taking the final decision on her further employment. The Ombudsman thus closed the case.

Decision in case 2033/2015/ZA on the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) handling of a request for review of a language proficiency exam

Srijeda | 14 prosinca 2016

EU officials are required to demonstrate the ability to work in a third language before their first promotion. When the complainant, who works in an EU Agency, failed a language proficiency exam in his third language, he asked EPSO to give him reasons for the relatively low grade in the writing test of the exam and also inform him of possible review mechanisms. In his view, EPSO’s explanations concerning his grade seemed inconsistent, while its initial reply about review possibilities was incorrect. Following the complainant’s insistence, EPSO agreed to reassess his writing test. The second evaluator confirmed the initial grade.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue. She examined the complainant’s test, as well as the assessments of the two evaluators. The Ombudsman did not find any manifest error or indications of partiality in the assessment of the complainant’s writing test. Concerning the erroneous information about the review possibilities, EPSO recognised its mistake and apologised to the complainant. The Ombudsman did not consider that further inquiries were necessary and closed the case. However, she made a suggestion for improvement concerning the information given to participants in language proficiency tests about the procedure and their review/appeal rights.

Decision in case 629/2015/ANA concerning the decision of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) not to establish a temporary agent at the end of the probationary period

Ponedjeljak | 11 srpnja 2016

The case concerned the decision of the ECDC to terminate the contract of a temporary agent at the end of a probationary period.

The Ombudsman conducted an inquiry into the matter and took the view that, in general terms, the explanations given by the ECDC about its decision not to retain the complainant in employment at the end of the probationary period were reasonable.

However, the Ombudsman considered that the ECDC had failed to make clear to the complainant, in good time, (a) that the problems identified in the Newcomers' Evaluation Dialogue were so serious as to warrant the termination of the complainant's contract, (b) the areas in which he needed to improve, through a specific and clear Action Plan. The failure to do so constituted maladministration. Moreover, the Ombudsman considers that, in circumstances in which an EU body does not have enough time to evaluate properly the work of a temporary agent, or where the temporary agent has not had an adequate opportunity to correct deficiencies in his or her performance, it would be good administration to examine if "exceptional circumstances" justifying the extension of the probationary period exist. As there is no evidence in the file that the ECDC seriously examined the option of extending the complainant's probation period, the Ombudsman made a corresponding suggestion for improvement for the future. Finally, given that it is good administration to apologise for any bad practice, the Ombudsman believes that the ECDC should acknowledge its mistakes in dealing with this case and apologise to the complainant for these mistakes.

Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 2041/2014/DK against the European Commission regarding transfer of pension rights

Srijeda | 25 svibnja 2016

The case concerned the Commission's decision to change its original proposal on the transfer in of the complainant's pension rights, acquired in the UK pension scheme, into the EU pension scheme.

The Commission argued that it was required to change its original proposal as it had been based on General Implementing Provisions which were already out of date at the time its proposal was made. The Commission's revised proposal, which was less favourable to the complainant, was based on the revised General Implementing Provisions actually in place at the date of the original proposal. The complainant argued that the Commission should honour its first proposal that he had already accepted.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the General Court had ruled that the Commission was not legally required to make proposals on the transfer in of pension rights acquired outside of the EU pension scheme and that, in fact, an actual determination of the worth of such transferred pension rights could be given only after the transfer had been made. In fact, this was a practice established by the Commission simply to better inform its officials about what they could expect once they actually decided to request the transfer in of their pension rights into the EU pension scheme.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the complaint with a conclusion that there was no maladministration by the Commission.

Odluka u predmetu 45/2015/PMC - Aktivnosti Europskog ureda za borbu protiv prijevara (OLAF) u pogledu izvješća zviždača

Utorak | 11 kolovoza 2015

Slučaj se odnosio na aktivnosti OLAF-a nakon primitka izvješća zviždača kojim se Europska agencija za sigurnost zračnog prometa (EASA) povezuje s navodnim manipuliranjem izvješća o istrazi sigurnosti zračnog prometa. Nakon prvotne procjene, ombudsmanicu je zabrinula navodna odluka OLAF-a o odbacivanju slučaja i upućivanju predmeta natrag EASA-i, unatoč činjenici da je zviždač svjesno odlučio uputiti izvješće OLAF-u, a ne EASA-i. Početni stav ombudsmanice bio je da bi takva odluka mogla negativno utjecati na opću učinkovitost odredbi o zviždačima. Stoga je odlučila istražiti sporni slučaj.

Nakon pregleda spisa OLAF-a, ombudsmanica je otkrila da je OLAF s razlogom razmišljao o pokretanju istrage. Pokazalo se i da OLAF zapravo nije zatvorio slučaj, nego je zatražio od EASA-e da istraži slučaj i izvijesti o rezultatima istrage. Nadalje, OLAF je zadržao pravo pokretanja službene istrage u kasnijoj fazi. S tim saznanjima, ombudsmanica je zaključila da je OLAF na odgovarajući način postupio sa zviždačkim izvješćem podnositelja žalbi. Ombudsmanica je napomenula da je OLAF trebao jasnije obavijestiti podnositelja žalbe da prosljeđivanje predmeta EASA-i ne znači da OLAF neće poduzimati daljnje mjere po tom pitanju. U tom je pogledu imala i dodatnu napomenu.

Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiries into complaints 26/2011/DK and 1307/2012/DK against the European External Action Service

Četvrtak | 04 lipnja 2015

The case concerned the complainant's dismissal as a member of staff in a European Union Police Mission, and his subsequent request to have access to the documents contained in his personal file.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the complainant's dismissal was legal. However, she also found that the Mission should have waited for the completion of the internal review process, which actually dealt with the complainant's situation, before dismissing the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore considered it appropriate to ask the European External Action Service (EEAS), in a proposal for a solution, to offer the complainant an ex gratia payment in recognition of the errors made by the Mission. The EEAS accepted the proposal and offered to make an ex gratia payment of EUR 2000.The complainant did not accept the offer. The Ombudsman considered that the amount offered by the EEAS was appropriate and that there were therefore no grounds for further inquiries into this aspect of the case.

As regards the complainant's access to his personal file, the Ombudsman found that there had not been any maladministration on the part of the EEAS.

Odluka u predmetu OI/1/2014/PMC - Samo su dvije institucije EU-a donijele potrebna pravila o javnom upozoravanju

Četvrtak | 26 veljače 2015

Institucije EU-a od 1. siječnja 2014. obvezne su uvesti unutarnja pravila o javnom upozoravanju koja obuhvaćaju zaštitu osoba koje izdaju javna upozorenja, pružanje informacija tim osobama te postupak za rješavanje pritužbi tih osoba na način na koji se prema njima postupa. Kako bi se osiguralo da uprava EU-a čini sve što je u njenoj moći da potakne pojedince koji su uočili ozbiljna nedolična ili pogrešna ponašanja da progovore o tome, Ombudsmanica je pokrenula istragu na vlastitu inicijativu u Europskom Parlamentu, Europskoj komisiji Vijeću Europske unije, Sudu Europske unije, Europskom revizorskom sudu, Europskoj službi za vanjsko djelovanje, Europskom gospodarskom i socijalnom odboru, Odboru regija i instituciji Europskog nadzornika za zaštitu podataka.

Ombudsmanica je iskazala svoje razočaranje jer je istraga pokazala da su dosad samo dvije od tih devet institucija donijele takva pravila. Odgovori institucija pokazuju da je potrebno učiniti mnogo više kako bi se javnosti i osobama koje bi potencijalno mogle izdati javna upozorenja pokazalo da institucije EU-a pozdravljaju javno upozoravanje te da potiču takve osobe da istupe, da će zaštititi te osobe od negativnih mjera institucija za koje rade te da će njihovo izvješćivanje voditi do ispravne istrage. Ombudsmanica stoga zatvara slučaj uz smjernice za buduća poboljšanja, potičući institucije da što prije okončaju svoje rasprave na međuinstitucionalnoj razini te da se pritom ugledaju na primjer unutarnjih pravila o javnom upozoravanju same Ombudsmanice. Ombudsmanica također pohvaljuje Komisiju i Revizorski sud na napretku koji su dosad postigli u tom pogledu.