Cerca indagini

Nel 2015, un comitato delle Nazioni Unite ha rilevato che il regime di assicurazione malattia per i membri del personale dell’UE, il regime comune di assicurazione malattia (RCAM), non è conforme alla Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti delle persone con disabilità (CRPD). Il comitato ha raccomandato di rivedere il regime RCAM al fine di offrire una copertura completa per le esigenze sanitarie legate alle disabilità.

Dopo aver ricevuto denunce da parte di membri del personale, che avevano riscontrato problemi nell’ottenere il rimborso completo di spese mediche proprie o dei propri familiari, la Mediatrice ha condotto un’indagine strategica. Ha riscontrato che il mancato intervento della Commissione europea in risposta alla raccomandazione del comitato ha costituito cattiva amministrazione. Pertanto, ha raccomandato alla Commissione di rivedere le norme che disciplinano il regime RCAM. Inoltre, ha presentato alla Commissione una serie di suggerimenti relativi al modo in cui le esigenze delle persone con disabilità vengono contemplate nell’ambito del regime RCAM, nonché alla necessità di formare il personale e di consultare adeguatamente le parti interessate al fine di garantire che detto regime rispecchi le esigenze delle persone con disabilità.

La Commissione ha risposto affermando che rivedrà le norme che disciplinano il regime RCAM e prenderà provvedimenti per dare seguito alla maggior parte dei suggerimenti della Mediatrice.

Poiché la Commissione ha accettato la sua raccomandazione, la Mediatrice ha archiviato la sua indagine strategica. Data l’importanza della questione, chiede alla Commissione di riferire entro sei mesi in merito all’attuazione della raccomandazione. La Mediatrice conferma inoltre il suo suggerimento relativo alla necessità che la Commissione riesamini le proprie norme del 2004 per quanto concerne l’adeguamento alle esigenze del personale con disabilità.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) handling of a complaint about the conditions at a test centre for a selection competition for EU civil servants. The complainant had been assigned a computer beside the entrance door, and claimed the disruption caused by people entering and leaving the room negatively affected her performance. Her attempts to have her concerns dealt with by staff at the test centre were unsuccessful and she subsequently complained to EPSO. Dissatisfied with how EPSO dealt with her complaint, she then turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and requested that EPSO look into the complaint more thoroughly. The Ombudsman’s inquiry team also met with representatives from EPSO and the contractor responsible for managing the tests, and visited a test centre at EPSO’s headquarters. The Ombudsman concluded that, overall, further inquiries in this case were not justified; however, she made a number of suggestions for improvement to EPSO.

The case concerned the rejection by the European Union Advisory Mission Ukraine (EUAM) of the complainant’s application in a selection procedure. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that there was no maladministration as regards the rejection of the application. The Ombudsman further found that a one-level administrative review mechanism is sufficient. Finally, the Ombudsman was pleased to be informed that the European External Action Service has now decided to amend the message it sends to rejected candidates in order to include information on available remedies.

The complainant, who works for the Court of Justice of the European Union on a temporary contract, applied for an EPSO competition to recruit conference interpreters. The Notice of Competition stated that completed applications had to be submitted by 6 August 2013 at noon. The complainant missed the deadline. On 7 August 2013, she informed EPSO that she had been hospitalised from 5 to 6 August 2013 and therefore had not been able to complete her application on time. On 7 August 2013, she requested EPSO to extend the deadline. EPSO refused. Its main reason for refusing was, it stated, that it must treat all applicants equally.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and made the preliminary finding that EPSO had failed to consider whether the complainant’s circumstances amounted to a situation of force majeure. She thus recommended that EPSO (i) acknowledge that there are situations where, because of force majeure, it is fair and proper that candidates should be given a new deadline; (ii) clarify the circumstances in which such a new deadline should be set; and (iii) inform candidates accordingly. EPSO initially rejected the Ombudsman's recommendations and argued that it would be difficult to draw a line between different justifications put forward by candidates and to set out how candidates would prove that force majeure had occurred. It added that allowing candidates to invoke force majeure would jeopardise both the smooth running of open competitions and the equal treatment of candidates. It also referred to statistics which, it argued, proved that dealing with all the requests for deadline extensions after the deadline has expired would be an administrative burden for EPSO.

However, following meetings between Ombudsman and EPSO staff, EPSO finally accepted the recommendations of the Ombudsman in principle. As regards the specific case of the complainant, however, the Ombudsman noted that the competition in question had ended. She also noted that the complainant had chosen not to comment on the response of EPSO to her recommendations. In view of this, the Ombudsman considered that there were no grounds for further inquiries into whether the complainant’s case met the requirements of force majeure that EPSO now, in principle, agrees to apply.