Cerca indagini

The case concerned information provided by the European Commission about the status of two infringement complaints.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission could have provided more comprehensive information about the status of one of the complaints, notably in relation to the ongoing ‘multiple complaints procedure’ covering some of the issues raised in that complaint. However, it dealt with the complaints in a reasonable manner.

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

The case concerned the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to allow a candidate, who was placed in COVID-19 quarantine, to reschedule her test in the context of a selection procedure for contract agent staff (CAST Permanent selection procedure).

The Ombudsman found that EPSO provided reasonable explanations as to why it was not able to provide an alternative testing date to the complainant. On that basis, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding that there was no maladministration by EPSO.

I denuncianti, costituiti da un gruppo di organizzazioni della società civile, erano preoccupati per il fatto che la Commissione europea non valutasse i rischi per i diritti umani prima di fornire sostegno ai paesi africani per lo sviluppo di capacità di sorveglianza, in particolare nel contesto del Fondo fiduciario di emergenza dell’Unione europea per l’Africa (EUTFA). I denuncianti contestavano che, prima di accettare di sostenere progetti con potenziali implicazioni a livello di sorveglianza, come le banche dati biometriche o le tecnologie di monitoraggio dei telefoni cellulari, la Commissione avrebbe dovuto effettuare valutazioni preliminari del rischio e dell’impatto per garantire che i progetti non comportino violazioni dei diritti umani (come il diritto alla riservatezza).

Sulla base dell’indagine, la Mediatrice ha concluso che le misure in vigore non erano sufficienti a garantire un’adeguata valutazione dell’impatto sui diritti umani dei progetti EUTFA. Per ovviare alle carenze individuate, la Mediatrice ha suggerito di apportare miglioramenti al fine di garantire che, per i futuri progetti del Fondo fiduciario dell’UE, sia effettuata una valutazione preliminare dell’impatto sui diritti umani.

The case concerned how the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) evaluated tenders in two procurement procedures for the provision of translation services. The complainant argued that the CdT was inconsistent in its evaluation, given that it had assessed its tenders differently in the past. It also argued that the CdT had wrongly assessed the complainant’s tenders against two criteria set out in the calls for tenders.

The Ombudsman found that the CdT correctly followed the methodology it put in place for assessing the tenders in the two procedures. She also took the view that there was no indication of a manifest error in how the CdT assessed the complainant’s tenders.

On that basis, the Ombudsman considered that there was no maladministration by the CdT and she closed the case. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman trusts that the CdT will provide more detailed information to tenderers about its assessment in future procedures, as clearer information at an early stage may reduce the risk of complaints such as the one that led to this inquiry.