The complainant considered that the European Commission had wrongly decided not to carry out a human rights impact assessment before agreeing to new provisions, which were developed within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), on export credits for coal-fired electricity generation projects.

The Commission considered that no impact assessment was needed because the provisions were not likely to have any significant impact.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had not carried out any thorough analysis before deciding not to carry out an impact assessment. She found that this constituted maladministration. The Ombudsman recommended that, in the future, in advance of a substantive decision, the Commission should ensure that it systematically assesses whether an envisaged measure, proposal or international agreement is likely to have significant economic, social or environmental impacts, including human rights impacts. The Ombudsman stressed that the Commission should keep a written record of this.

The Commission informed the Ombudsman that it already has in place procedures that address her recommendations.

The Ombudsman notes, however, that the Commission was unable to provide her with a record of the internal analysis carried out in this case before it was decided that no impact assessment was needed.

The Ombudsman therefore calls on the Commission to apply its procedures consistently and to keep a written record of its analysis and assessment. On this basis, the Ombudsman closes the case.

The complaint to the Commission 1. The complainant, representing a family-owned satellite communications services provider, repeatedly complained to the European Commission, between June 2013 and August 2018, about infringements of national, international and EU laws by Croatia. The Commission registered the complaint in its data base of complaints about infringements of EU law (CHAP) in 2016. 2. ...

This case concerned a request for public access to documents in a closed infringement complaint concerning Spain’s new tax management system, and to documents in other similar ongoing infringement procedures.

The Ombudsman found that the documents requested did not exist in the file of the closed infringement complaint. As to the documents in other similar infringement complaints, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s decision to refuse access was in line with the applicable rules on access to documents. Thus, there was no maladministration in this aspect of the case.

Regarding the Commission’s handling of the access request, the Ombudsman found that the Commission’s explanation and apology for initially replying in English, and not in the language of the complainant, settled this aspect of the complaint. As to its failure to respond to the complainant’s requests in a timely manner, she considered this to be in breach of the procedural requirements. However, a finding of maladministration with a recommendation would not serve any useful purpose in this particular case. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.

The complaint to the European Commission 1. On 21 November 2017, the complainant contacted the European Commission concerning problems he had had with German courts due to an alleged misapplication of the Victims’ Rights Directive[1] in Germany. 2. He received an Acknowledgement of Receipt from the Commission, dated 18 December 2017, that his request was registered as an infringement complaint. 3....

The background to the complaint 1. The complainant has been working as an EU civil servant in Brussels, Belgium, since 2003. The complainant receives family allowances from the EU administration for her two children, on the basis of the EU Staff Regulations.[1] The complainant also used to be paid Belgian family allowances. In accordance with the Staff Regulations, the Belgian allowances were dedu...

1. El reclamante escribió a la Comisión Europea en numerosas ocasiones en el 2018 para solicitar información sobre el procedimiento de infracción 2015/2200. Ante la falta de respuesta, el reclamante se dirigió al Defensor del Pueblo Europeo. 2. El equipo de investigación del Defensor del Pueblo contactó a la Comisión. La misma respondió al reclamante el 27 de febrero de 2019, disculpándose por el ...

Complaint to the European Commission 1. Over the past two years, the complainant has raised on a number of occasions with the European Commission his concerns about the non-renewal of his business licence by the relevant authorities in the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar. 2. In January 2017, he complained to the Commission that the non-renewal of his licence amounted to a breach of EU law,...

The case concerned the refusal of the Council of the European Union to grant full access to legal opinions on the legislative proposals for Regulations on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (EUROJUST).

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Council agreed to disclose two of the four documents, but maintained its refusal to disclose fully the two remaining documents, although partial access was granted.

The Ombudsman accepts that the refusal to disclose the legal opinions fully was justified on the grounds that it would undermine the protection of legal advice and court proceedings. She therefore closes the case with a finding of no maladministration, but invites the Council to review its refusal in light of the further passage of time.

The complainant contended that the European Commission had taken too long to decide on the procedure to follow in dealing with his complaint against Spain.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had acted within its discretionary powers and on the basis of the provisions guiding its relations with complainants.

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

La denuncia al Comitato di risoluzione unico e la sua risposta al denunciante 1. Il denunciante si è candidato alla posizione di operatore finanziario presso il Comitato di risoluzione unico (SRB)[1]. Il punteggio che l’SRB ha assegnato alla candidatura del denunciante non era sufficiente per ammetterlo alla fase successiva della procedura di selezione. 2. Il denunciante era del parere che le sue ...