Ieškoti tyrimų

The complainant was concerned that most of the information on the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) website is available in the English language only.

In the context of the inquiry, the Ombudsman reminded EMA of her recommendations on the use of official EU languages for the EU administration when communicating with the public.

EMA informed the Ombudsman that it is working on a language policy and a multilingual interface for its website.

The Ombudsman welcomed EMA’s plans to address the matter and closed the inquiry suggesting it follows up on its commitment in good time. The Ombudsman also suggested that, in the meantime, EMA seeks to make core information in all official EU languages more prominent on its website.

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 how EPSO assessed the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of audit.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board had examined the replies provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the selection criteria. The Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s application, and therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Byla buvo susijusi su Europos investicijų banko (EIB) praktika prašyti, kad darbo ieškantys asmenys prieš EIB priimant sprendimą dėl įdarbinimo pateiktų tam tikrą asmeninę informaciją, visų pirma susijusią su jų šeimine padėtimi.

Ombudsmenė pripažino, kad EIB nustatė šią praktiką, kad jo procedūros būtų kuo veiksmingesnės. Tačiau ji išreiškė susirūpinimą, kad asmeninės informacijos rinkimas yra neproporcingas ir gali neigiamai paveikti pasitikėjimą EIB įdarbinimo procedūromis. Ne visi kandidatai būtinai būtų tikri, kad asmeninė informacija jokiomis aplinkybėmis neturės įtakos jų galimybėms įsidarbinti.

EIB atsakė, kad pakeitė savo praktiką, kad išspręstų ombudsmenės iškeltus susirūpinimą keliančius klausimus.

Ombudsmenė palankiai įvertino konstruktyvų EIB atsakymą ir tyrimą baigė.

 

The case was about how the European Parliament dealt with two traineeship applications from a person who requested special arrangements for his applications due to dyslexia.

After first having rejected the complainant’s application, Parliament decided to interview him and offered him a traineeship. As the complainant had a long absence from his traineeship for medical reasons, Parliament offered him the possibility to apply again. However, Parliament rejected the complainant’s new application.

The complainant took issue with how Parliament handled his traineeship applications and with how it informed him that he could reapply for a traineeship.

The Ombudsman finds that Parliament should have been clearer in its communication with the complainant regarding the possibility to apply for a second traineeship. However, she finds no maladministration in how Parliament dealt with the complainant’s traineeship applications. Similarly, the fact that Parliament deals with requests for special arrangements made by traineeship candidates on a case-by-case basis is a reasonable approach.

The Ombudsman makes a suggestion for improvement to Parliament regarding how it informs traineeship candidates of the possibility to request special assistance in the context of the application and selection procedure and of how they should make such a request.

The case concerned a new insurance policy that the European Commission concluded with a private insurance company to provide accident and sickness insurance for Conference Interpreting Agents (ACIs).

The complainant is a former ACI who considered that the conditions of the new insurance policy were very disadvantageous compared to the previous policy, and that it discriminated against certain ACIs.

During the inquiry, it became clear that the complainant would be less disadvantaged than he had feared. The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s explanations for the changes in the policy are convincing and reasonable. The inquiry also uncovered no evidence that would call into question the procedure leading to the new insurance contract, which included consultation with the international interpreters’ association.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by the Commission.