Pretraživanje istraga

The complainant is a freelance interpreter who raised concerns about how the European Parliament complied with its contractual obligations in relation to the provision of remote interpretation services to the European Parliament during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Ombudsman took the view that the Parliament had provided reasonable explanations for its position and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to recover over EUR 420 000 in unused funds from a consultancy that carried out an EU-funded programme on justice reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The EU funds had been deposited in a local bank, which subsequently became insolvent.

The consultancy argued that the Commission had no right to hold it liable for the unused funds that had become unavailable because of the bank’s insolvency. Furthermore, it considered that it had not been given the opportunity to express its views during the audit and recovery procedures and that it had not acted negligently.

The Commission argued that the consultancy had been given the opportunity to express its views but did not provide comments. The Commission further considered that the complainant should take legal action against the bank to get the funds released as part of the liquidation procedure.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into whether the Commission’s decision to recover the unavailable funds from the complainant was reasonable. She was not satisfied that the Commission had acted in accordance with the principles of good administration and proposed as a solution that it reconsider its decision that the complainant bear the risk for the insolvency of the local bank in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The Commission did not agree with the Ombudsman’s assessment but stated that, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, it was ready to give the complainant a new opportunity to provide information that might allow the Commission to open an amicable settlement aimed at partially sharing the economic burden of the lost funds.

The Ombudsman welcomes the Commission’s willingness to look into an amicable solution with a view to sharing the burden of the loss of the funds with the complainant. She considers that the complainant has provided the necessary information.

Thus, the Ombudsman closed the case as further inquiries would not result in a more satisfactory outcome for the complainant. To try to avoid similar situations arising in future, she made three suggestions for improvement.

The case concerned how the European Parliament communicated with an individual regarding his application for a traineeship. The complainant contended that he was shortlisted, interviewed and then rejected before the period for shortlisting candidates had formally started. He argued that this was in breach of the selection procedure rules.

The Ombudsman found that the Parliament had initially miscommunicated with the complainant, but that it promptly remedied this. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration but encouraged the Parliament to improve the information provided on the dedicated webpage for the traineeship in question, notably about the possibility to interview candidates.

The case concerned how the European External Action Service’s handled a complaint concerning the pre-selection of candidates by Romania for the Junior Professionals in Delegations programme. The EEAS said that, according to the rules, it cannot review Member States’ assessments of candidates, unless there is a manifest error or substantiated allegations that the procedure was not fair, transparent and objective, which was not the case. The Ombudsman found the EEAS’s explanation of its role, as well as its assessment of this case, was reasonable.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

The case concerned the decision by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) not to select the complainant as an officer in its Standing Corps following an interview as part of a selection procedure. The complainant argued that his application had received unjustifiably low scores. In addition, the complainant was concerned that Frontex did not allow him to request a review of the decision.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board set up by Frontex had followed the vacancy notice when scoring the complainant’s application. Frontex confirmed that it had processed the complainant’s request for review, but acknowledged that the information provided to the complainant may not have been clear. In the course of the inquiry, Frontex implemented changes in its practices, which the Ombudsman welcomed.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by Frontex.