Ieškoti tyrimų

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit the complainant to a selection procedure for ‘experts in technical support to Member States’ structural reforms’, because she did not meet the eligibility requirements as regard the level of education and years of professional experience.

The Ombudsman found no manifest error in the selection board’s finding that the complainant did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

 The complainant, a civil society organisation, raised concerns about the sustainability assessment of gas projects in the Energy Community, an international organisation for cooperation on energy between the EU and countries in the Western Balkans and in the Black Sea region. Such projects may benefit from streamlined permitting procedures and have to comply with the criteria set out in the EU’s Trans-European Networks for Energy (TEN-E) Regulation, as applied also by the Energy Community.

The Energy Community is not an EU body and is thus outside the Ombudsman’s mandate. However, as the European Commission represents the EU in the Energy Community, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to explain how it ensures that the sustainability of gas projects is properly assessed, and its role in the process.

In the context of this inquiry, the Commission also gave an update on its efforts to improve how the sustainability of EU gas ‘projects of common interest’ (PCI) is assessed, which was the subject of a previous Ombudsman inquiry.

The Ombudsman found the Commission’s explanations satisfactory and closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

A call for tenders for the procurement of architectural services, organised by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), included the requirement that one member of the team that would provide the service be an architect registered with a specific association in Ireland. The complainant, an Irish architectural firm, contended that such a requirement is discriminatory, as other categories of professionals, such as registered building surveyors or chartered engineers, could provide the services listed in the call for tenders.

The Ombudsman found that Eurofound had not clearly demonstrated why the requirement was justified. However, she closed the inquiry with the finding that no further inquiries were justified because Eurofound has not awarded any contract. She nonetheless made a suggestion for improvement for any future calls for tenders for the provision of architectural services that Eurofound may organise.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of international cooperation.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications and, therefore, closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the decision by the European Commission’s Paymaster Office (PMO) to divide benefits derived from the child allowance between two divorced EU staff members. The complainant claimed that she should receive all derived benefits because she bears the majority of the costs for raising the child.

The Ombudsman finds the approach adopted by the PMO to decide on the division of derived benefits reasonable and in line with EU case-law. However, the Ombudsman finds that the PMO gave incoherent explanations to the complainant in its reply to her administrative complaint on the matter. However, with new internal administrative rules having been adopted that cover this area, the Ombudsman trusts that the PMO will ensure consistency in how the rules are applied and clarity in the information it gives to EU staff members. 

The Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries were justified in this case and closed the inquiry.