Norite pateikti skundą dėl ES institucijos ar įstaigos?

Ieškoti tyrimų

Byla
Laikotarpis
Raktiniai žodžiai
Arba pabandykite senus raktinius žodžius (iki 2016 m.)

Rodoma 1 - 20 iš 277 rezultato (-ų)

Decision on how the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) evaluates tenders in procurement procedures for the provision of translation services (case 1841/2021/ABZ)

Trečiadienis | 09 lapkričio 2022

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.

Sprendimas dėl to, ar ombudsmenė galėjo tirti, kaip Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismas nagrinėja klausimus dėl Teismo narių elgesio kodekso laikymosi (byla 1072/2021/NH)

Pirmadienis | 27 birželio 2022

Byla buvo susijusi su viešomis Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo (ESTT) generalinio advokato pastabomis dėl ES skaitmeninių rinkų akto projekto vykstant teisėkūros procesui. Skundo pateikėjas, vartotojų apsaugos organizacija, laikėsi nuomonės, kad ESTT šį galimą elgesio kodekso pažeidimą išaiškino netinkamai.

Ombudsmenė pateikė ESTT keletą klausimų. ESTT teigė, kad ombudsmenė neturėjo įgaliojimų nagrinėti skundo, nes jis susijęs su Teismo teisminėmis funkcijomis.

Ombudsmenės nuomonė dėl jos turimų įgaliojimų skyrėsi nuo ESTT nuomonės. Kadangi toliau tirti nebūtų buvę prasminga, ombudsmenė baigė bylą.

Decision on how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) responded to concerns regarding the composition of an interview panel in a selection procedure for EU staff in the field of taxation (case 1169/2020/KT)

Ketvirtadienis | 23 birželio 2022

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed a candidate in an interview in the context of a procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of taxation. The complainant considered that his low score in the interview was due to the fact that the interview panel did not include any expert in taxation. He was dissatisfied with how EPSO addressed his concerns.

In the course of the inquiry, EPSO provided adequate clarifications about the expertise of the selection board. The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how EPSO had carried out the interview. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision on how the European Commission carried out a procurement procedure for the provision of expert medical services (case 1756/2021/LM)

Ketvirtadienis | 02 birželio 2022

The European Commission organised a call for tenders for the provision of expert medical services for the European Union’s Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (‘the JSIS’). The complainant submitted a tender but was not successful.

The complainant asked the Commission for information about the successful tender and the contract value, but the Commission did not provide it to him. The complainant thus turned to the Ombudsman, raising concerns about the procurement procedure and questioning how his replies to the technical questionnaire had been evaluated.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission evaluated the complainant’s offer in line with the applicable rules and, therefore, there was no maladministration in this aspect of the complaint. However, the fact that the Commission provided the complainant with the information he had requested only in the course of the inquiry constituted maladministration. To address this, the Ombudsman made suggestions to ensure that, in the future, the Commission has in place measures to safeguard the rights of unsuccessful tenderers to avail of the redress mechanisms at their disposal.

Decision on how the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) carried out a selection procedure for the position of legal officer (case 1818/2021/FA)

Penktadienis | 20 gegužės 2022

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) carried out a selection procedure for the position of legal officer and assessed the complainant’s application.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a procedural error or a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s application and therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision on how the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) carried out a selection procedure (case 921/2021/VB)

Antradienis | 05 balandžio 2022

The case concerned how the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) organised a remote ‘pre-screening written test’ in a selection procedure. The complainant took issue with the EIOPA’s decision to organise the test remotely and with how the test was organised. He also argued that, as the EIOPA offered two different dates on which candidates could take the test, there was a risk that candidates could share test questions with each other.  

The Ombudsman found that both the decision to organise the pre‑screening test remotely and how the test was organised was reasonable. The EIOPA also took sufficient safeguards to minimise the risk that candidates could share test questions with each other.  

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding that there was no maladministration by the EIOPA.