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.)

Prikazuju se 1 - 20 od 70 rezultata

Decision in case 616/2020/DL on how the European Commission dealt with a contractor that had not paid its consultants

Srijeda | 19 svibnja 2021

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.

Decision in case 1498/2019/NH on the European Parliament not sending its reply to an access to documents request by e-mail

Četvrtak | 28 svibnja 2020

The case concerned the refusal by the European Parliament to send a decision refusing public access to documents by e-mail.

The Ombudsman found that Parliament’s reply to the complainant was reasonable in the given context, as the complainant had already received the decision by registered post.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there had been no maladministration by Parliament in this case.

Odluka u predmetu 1484/2019/UNK o načinu na koji je Europska komisija postupila sa zahtjevom za potpuni javni pristup nacrtima članka o direktivi o autorskim pravima objavljenima na mrežnom mjestu Komisije

Ponedjeljak | 02 prosinca 2019

Predmet se odnosio na odluku Europske komisije da redigira imena svojih članova osoblja u dokumentu prije nego što je podnositelju pritužbe odobrila pristup tom dokumentu.

Ombudsman je smatrao da je Komisija pravilno postupila redigiranjem imena. Stoga je zaključio istragu utvrdivši da nije bilo nepravilnosti.

Odluka 552/2018/MIG o odbijanju Europske komisije da odobri javni pristup dokumentima koji se odnose na njemački provedbeni zakon o društvenim mrežama

Srijeda | 20 studenoga 2019

Predmet se također odnosio na javni pristup dokumentima u posjedu Europske komisije koji se odnose na njemački provedbeni zakon o društvenim mrežama, nacionalni propis čiji je cilj suzbijati lažne vijesti na društvenim mrežama.

Ombudsman je predložio rješenje te zamolio Komisiju da preispita svoje (djelomično) odbijanje da odobri javni pristup dokumentima. Komisija nije odgovorila u roku koji je odredio Ombudsman. Ombudsman je zatim izdao preporuku Komisiji.

Komisija je odgovorila da ne prihvaća Ombudsmanov prijedlog.

Ombudsman izražava žaljenje što Komisija nije prihvatila njegovu preporuku te i dalje smatra da se radilo o nepravilnosti u postupanju.

Decision in case 1731/2018/FP on the refusal by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency to grant public access to the documents submitted by a public undertaking for a funding approval in the context of a call for proposals by the Connecting Europe Facility

Petak | 04 listopada 2019

The case concerned the refusal by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) to grant public access to documents submitted by a national cybersecurity authority that was seeking funding from INEA.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and proposed that INEA should partially disclose the requested documents, redacting only information that it considers to be genuinely commercially sensitive or personal data.

INEA rejected the Ombudsman’s proposal, arguing that most of the information that could be disclosed was already in the public domain and the proposed partial disclosure would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on INEA. It also said that it accepted the arguments of the national cybersecurity authority regarding the likely damage disclosure would cause to its commercial interests.

The Ombudsman found INEA’s refusal to grant even partial access to the requested documents to be maladministration and recommended that INEA partially disclose the relevant Grant application.

INEA rejected the Ombudsman’s recommendation. Consequently, the Ombudsman now closes the case, confirming her finding of maladministration.