Cerca indagini

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to recover sums paid out as grants under various EU-funded projects. The decision was taken following audits carried out by an auditor on behalf of the Commission. The complainant disagreed with the audit findings. Amongst other things, the complainant wanted the audits to be reviewed by the national chamber of auditors in its Member State. The Commission did not consider this necessary.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that there was no maladministration by the Commission.

This case arose from the failure of the European Commission Representation in Croatia to reply to an information request made on Facebook and the fact that it blocked the complainant on its Facebook page. The complainant had asked if the Head of Representation in Croatia was a former member of the communist party of Yugoslavia.

Since the Commission has now unblocked its Facebook page and replied, the Ombudsman finds that the Commission has settled these aspects of the case. The Ombudsman further finds that the Commission committed no maladministration by not disclosing the requested information because it constituted protected personal data.

However, the Ombudsman makes a suggestion for improvement about the need for replies to citizens communicating with the Commission on social media. The Commission should take into account the fact that the right to a reply, guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principles of good administration, as provided for in the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, applies to communications received via social media, subject only to  limitations justified under the principle of proportionality. The Commission should take this into account in revising its Information Providers Guide and in any other relevant work.

The case concerned a selection procedure for a post at the EU Delegation to Albania. The complainant was unhappy at not having been shortlisted for the post, as she believed that she fulfilled all the required criteria. She requested information on her application and the reasons why she was not the shortlisted. The Delegation failed to reply to her request in a timely manner.

The Ombudsman inquired into the matter. In the course of the inquiry, the Delegation replied to the complaint, thereby resolving this aspect of the complaint. As regards the decision not to shortlist the complainant, the Ombudsman found the Delegation’s explanation of its decision to be reasonable and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. The Ombudsman suggested that the European External Action Service should give guidance to Delegations on the need to keep candidates informed where selection competitions have been delayed. The Ombudsman also suggested that the European External Action Service should include, in the ‘EU Delegations’ Guide for Local Agents’, more detailed requirements regarding the type of information to be included in the list/excel spreadsheet drawn up by selection committees.

The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s correspondence in the context of a financial audit at the Member State level. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the Commission replied. It disclosed the document requested by the complainant but redacted some personal data (names of physical persons). The Ombudsman found that the Commission correctly justified the redaction under Regulation 45/2001.

The case concerned the handling of a request for information as how to obtain a downloadable version of a case law database held by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’). The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and asked EUIPO to better explain its reasons why it could not comply with the request. The EUIPO’s explanation was accurate and reasonable. Thus, the case was closed with the finding of no maladministration.

Un ex tirocinante del Consiglio dell’Unione europea ha denunciato che l’indennità corrisposta dalle istituzioni dell’UE ai propri tirocinanti è inadeguata, in quanto inferiore al minimo salariale, e quindi non garantisce loro un tenore di vita decoroso.

La Mediatrice, dopo aver avviato un’indagine al riguardo, ha ritenuto che il Consiglio avesse spiegato in modo sufficientemente dettagliato come viene calcolata l’indennità percepita dai tirocinanti. Il Mediatrice ha ritenuto ragionevole la decisione di corrispondere un’indennità equivalente al 25 % dello stipendio di un funzionario di grado AD5, 1° scaglione. Il Consiglio ha preso questa decisione agendo entro il proprio margine di discrezionalità, in base alle proprie esigenze amministrative e al bilancio disponibile.

La Mediatrice ha osservato che per il Consiglio sussiste una distinzione tra tirocinio e impiego Di conseguenza, un tirocinante percepisce un’indennità, e non uno stipendio, essendo i diritti e gli obblighi di un tirocinante non paragonabili a quelli di un membro del personale. La Mediatrice ha ritenuto la spiegazione del Consiglio ragionevole.

Pertanto, ha provveduto alla chiusura del caso concludendo che la prassi del Consiglio non costituisce cattiva amministrazione.

The case concerned the European Central Bank’s (ECB) failure to reply adequately to the complainant's request for information concerning the ECB's competence to ensure the enforcement of financial regulation and consumer protection legislation in Member-States. The Ombudsman asked the ECB to provide the complainant with a detailed answer concerning its supervisory role vis a vis the national central banks, but also the role of the Single Supervisory Mechanism in supervising private entities. The ECB replied in a clear and comprehensive manner. The Ombudsman therefore decided to close the case.

La Mediatrice avviava quindi un’indagine sul caso. La Mediatrice concordava con la Commissione che non fosse opportuno per quest’ultima interferire con l’interpretazione scientifica o la procedura di pubblicazione degli studi scientifici finanziati dalla Commissione stessa. Concludeva altresì che la mera esistenza di legami tra gli scienziati coinvolti nel progetto e l’industria non costituisce di per sé un conflitto d’interesse. La Mediatrice faceva presente che la Commissione spesso finanzia progetti condotti dall’industria o da gruppi che intrattengono stretti legami con l’industria. Nonostante ciò, suggeriva alla Commissione di valutare l’opportunità di inviare al denunciante una spiegazione più esaustiva e dettagliata dei motivi per cui, a suo avviso, i legami tra l’industria e gli scienziati partecipanti a GRACE non generano una situazione di conflitto d’interesse.

La Mediatrice europea accertava inoltre che la Commissione aveva rispettato tutte le disposizioni di legge riguardanti la pubblicazione dei nominativi degli esperti valutatori impegnati nella selezione dei progetti finanziati nell’ambito del settimo programma quadro. In un’ottica di migliorare ulteriormente la trasparenza e promuovere il controllo esercitato dal pubblico, la Mediatrice ha suggerito alla Commissione di pubblicare in futuro i nominativi degli esperti valutatori classificandoli in base all’argomento e/o al settore d’attività del settimo programma quadro. Ha altresì raccomandato che siano pubblicate anche le dichiarazioni d’interesse dei valutatori.

The case concerned a complaint that the European Central Bank did not, as some central banks had done in the past, publish a scoreboard on compliance by Eurozone Member States with the so-called "convergence criteria". The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the ECB is not obliged to publish such an overview, given, in particular, that Member States are now called upon to comply with different criteria. She also found that the ECB and the European Commission publish relevant and accessible statistical information on market surveillance. There was therefore no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Parliament's alleged failure to provide the complainant with the assessment grid and with the specific reasons for the points awarded to him in a selection procedure.

Given that the Civil Service Tribunal has ruled, in a recent judgment, that selection boards do not need to give candidates the corrected version of their tests, the reasons why replies were erroneous, or the evaluation grids used for the written and oral tests, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint to allow Parliament to comment on the relevance of the Tribunal's findings on its recruitment proceedings.

Parliament argued that its reasons for refusing to provide the complainant with the requested information were supported by the Civil Service Tribunal's judgment. It nevertheless provided the complainant with the reasons why he was awarded a certain number of points for certain answers.

The Ombudsman found that Parliament acted reasonably and therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Il caso riguardava il rifiuto della Commissione di rendere accessibili al pubblico documenti riguardanti la sorveglianza di Internet da parte dei servizi segreti britannici. La Mediatrice ha raccomandato alla Commissione di rendere accessibile uno specifico documento (una lettera del ministro degli Esteri britannico all'allora vicepresidente della Commissione) e di rendere pubblici gli altri documenti richiesti oppure motivare adeguatamente il rifiuto di renderli pubblici.

La Commissione ha deciso di rendere pubblica la lettera del ministro degli Esteri britannico, accettando quindi la prima parte della raccomandazione della Mediatrice. Si è invece mantenuta sulla propria posizione in relazione agli altri documenti, decidendo di non renderli noti. Ha motivato la propria posizione facendo presente che sta ancora indagando per appurare se i programmi britannici di sorveglianza di massa violino la normativa UE, in particolare per quanto riguarda il diritto delle persone fisiche alla protezione dei dati. La Commissione ha fatto valere che fino alla chiusura definitiva della propria indagine, la divulgazione anticipata degli altri documenti in questione avrebbe effetti negativi sul dialogo tra le autorità britanniche e la stessa Commissione. Più in generale, ha osservato che la possibilità di condurre le proprie indagini in modo efficace e di decidere una risposta appropriata dovrebbe essere posta al riparo dal rischio di pressioni esterne. Infine, ha fatto notare che non riteneva vi fosse un interesse pubblico prevalente alla divulgazione dei documenti.

La Mediatrice non ritiene che la Commissione abbia motivato adeguatamente la decisione di rifiutare di rendere pubblici i documenti rimanenti che non sono stati divulgati. Poiché la Commissione non ha né reso pubblici tali documenti, né fornito motivazioni adeguate a sostegno del rifiuto di renderli pubblici, è evidente che ha respinto la raccomandazione della Mediatrice relativa a tali documenti. Inoltre, la Mediatrice osserva che dal 2013 la Commissione non sembra aver intrapreso alcuna azione nell'ambito della propria indagine. La Mediatrice rileva quindi che nell'operato della Commissione in questo caso è ravvisabile un caso di cattiva amministrazione e addirittura una grave forma di cattiva amministrazione, vista l'importanza che la questione specifica riveste per i cittadini dell'UE.

The complaint, which was submitted by the British Air Line Pilots' Association, relates to the EU rules on flight and duty time limitations and rest requirements for commercial airlines. More specifically, it concerns the manner in which EASA had conducted its process to update these rules. The complainant contended (i) that scientific advice should have had a more prominent role in the rulemaking process; (ii) that EASA had failed to provide evidence of the qualifications of the members of the rulemaking group; and (iii) that EASA did not deal adequately with conflict of interest issues.

The Ombudsman found no maladministration by EASA as regards the role of scientific advice in the rulemaking process. As regards the issue of how EASA manages possible conflicts of interest in the rulemaking groups, the Ombudsman found that its policy for mitigating such conflicts in the case of its own staff had been changed and that this revised approach is now being applied also to experts in the rulemaking groups. On this basis the Ombudsman concluded that she did not have to inquire further into that issue. Finally, EASA accepted the Ombudsman's recommendation to provide the complainant with anonymised information about the members of the rulemaking group. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case, encouraging EASA to adopt a more proactive approach to disclosing information available to it about the qualifications and expertise of members of the rulemaking group. She also flagged that she is considering looking into issues related to the work done by external experts for certain EU agencies.