Önnek panasza van egy uniós intézménnyel vagy szervvel szemben?

Ügy keresése

Szöveg keresés

Dokumentum típus

Érintett intézmények

Rendezés típusa





A tisztességes eljárás hiánya (HHMEK 11. cikk)

Vagy próbálkozzon régi kulcsszavakkal (2016 előttiekkel)

1 - 20 az 305 találatból

Decision in case 2207/2019/EIS on how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint concerning the impact of a road construction project in Poland on the European hamster

Csütörtök | 28 május 2020

The case concerned how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint against the Polish government regarding a road construction project. The complainant, a Polish NGO, argued that the relevant Polish law does not allow it to challenge the project at national level effectively. The Commission considered that the complaint did not concern a systemic infringement of EU law and closed the case.

The Ombudsman noted that the complainant had raised an important matter which touches upon a significant body of EU law and concerns a recognised protected species, the European hamster. The complainant was therefore right to bring the matter to the Commission’s attention to check whether the Commission could do anything for the protection of the species.

Following consideration of all the facts and an inspection of the Commission’s file on the complaint, the Ombudsman found that the Commission’s decision was in line with the discretion it enjoys in dealing with infringement complaints. The Commission provided the complainant with a detailed explanation of its decision and showed that it is assessing the Polish law on access to justice for NGOs in the context of an ongoing infringement procedure. The Commission further stated that it is ready to reopen the matter if Poland were to ask for EU funding for the same project

The Ombudsman thus closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 426/2019/NH on how the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises assessed an application in a staff selection procedure

Csütörtök | 30 április 2020

The case concerned the way in which the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) assessed the complainant’s application in a selection procedure for the recruitment of a project adviser.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found nothing to suggest a manifest error in the selection committee’s assessment of the complainant’s qualifications and professional experience. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 172/2019/ΚΤ on how the Publications Office of the European Union filled a post for a proof-reader

Szerda | 15 április 2020

The complainant is included on a shortlist of candidates from which the Publications Office of the European Union (`Publications Office´) may recruit staff as proof-readers. He complained that the Publications Office did not consider him in the context of a vacancy and eventually recruited a candidate who was on a shortlist drawn up for the staff needs of another EU institution.

The Ombudsman found that, as the Publications Office had interviewed and rejected the complainant for a post with the same profile a few months earlier, it was justified in not inviting him to an interview for a similar post that became vacant shortly afterwards.

The Ombudsman closed the case finding no maladministration.

Decision in case 1766/2019/JAP on how the Research Executive Agency dealt with a request to accommodate the needs of a researcher with a severe medical condition, who was selected to carry out a research project

Csütörtök | 26 március 2020

The complainant is a researcher, who was selected to carry out research for an EU-funded project at a university in a different country from his country of residence. The Research Executive Agency (REA) and the university signed a grant agreement to implement the project.

Before the project was due to start, the complainant was diagnosed with a chronic illness. As a result, he asked if he could carry out the research at another research institute, closer to where he was living, so he could work on the project without disrupting his medical treatment.

The REA initially declined this request, which it considered incompatible with the rules of the grant agreement. Following further correspondence with the complainant and the university, the REA offered a different interpretation of the rules, which the complainant viewed as inconsistent.

In the course of this inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team proposed a solution to the situation. As a result, the REA approved the request to transfer the grant agreement to a research institute closer to where the complainant was living, and allowed him to work part time. The Ombudsman was pleased to note that a solution had been found and closed the case.