Pretraživanje istraga

The case concerned information provided by the European Commission about the status of two infringement complaints.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission could have provided more comprehensive information about the status of one of the complaints, notably in relation to the ongoing ‘multiple complaints procedure’ covering some of the issues raised in that complaint. However, it dealt with the complaints in a reasonable manner.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to allow a candidate, who was placed in COVID-19 quarantine, to reschedule her test in the context of a selection procedure for contract agent staff (CAST Permanent selection procedure).

The Ombudsman found that EPSO provided reasonable explanations as to why it was not able to provide an alternative testing date to the complainant. On that basis, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding that there was no maladministration by EPSO.

Podnositelji pritužbe, skupina organizacija civilnog društva, bili su zabrinuti da Europska komisija nije procijenila rizike za ljudska prava prije pružanja potpore za razvoj sposobnosti za nadzor afričkim zemljama, posebice u kontekstu Kriznog uzajamnog fonda EU-a za Afriku (EUTFA). Podnositelji pritužbe tvrdili su da je Komisija, prije nego što je pristala poduprijeti projekte s mogućim posljedicama za nadzor, kao što su biometrijske baze podataka ili tehnologije za praćenje mobilnih telefona, trebala provesti prethodne procjene rizika i učinka kako bi osigurala da projekti ne dovedu do kršenja ljudskih prava (kao što je pravo na privatnost).

Ombudsmanica je na temelju istrage zaključila da postojeće mjere nisu dovoljne da bi se osigurala pravilna procjena učinka EUFTA-inih projekata na ljudska prava. Kako bi se uklonili nedostatci koje je utvrdila, Ombudsmanica je predložila poboljšanje kako bi se za buduće projekte Uzajamnog fonda EU-a osigurala prethodna procjena učinka na ljudska prava.

The case concerned how the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) evaluated tenders in two procurement procedures for the provision of translation services. The complainant argued that the CdT was inconsistent in its evaluation, given that it had assessed its tenders differently in the past. It also argued that the CdT had wrongly assessed the complainant’s tenders against two criteria set out in the calls for tenders.

The Ombudsman found that the CdT correctly followed the methodology it put in place for assessing the tenders in the two procedures. She also took the view that there was no indication of a manifest error in how the CdT assessed the complainant’s tenders.

On that basis, the Ombudsman considered that there was no maladministration by the CdT and she closed the case. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman trusts that the CdT will provide more detailed information to tenderers about its assessment in future procedures, as clearer information at an early stage may reduce the risk of complaints such as the one that led to this inquiry.