Ieškoti tyrimų

The case concerned how the European External Action Service’s handled a complaint concerning the pre-selection of candidates by Romania for the Junior Professionals in Delegations programme. The EEAS said that, according to the rules, it cannot review Member States’ assessments of candidates, unless there is a manifest error or substantiated allegations that the procedure was not fair, transparent and objective, which was not the case. The Ombudsman found the EEAS’s explanation of its role, as well as its assessment of this case, was reasonable.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

The case concerned the decision by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) not to select the complainant as an officer in its Standing Corps following an interview as part of a selection procedure. The complainant argued that his application had received unjustifiably low scores. In addition, the complainant was concerned that Frontex did not allow him to request a review of the decision.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board set up by Frontex had followed the vacancy notice when scoring the complainant’s application. Frontex confirmed that it had processed the complainant’s request for review, but acknowledged that the information provided to the complainant may not have been clear. In the course of the inquiry, Frontex implemented changes in its practices, which the Ombudsman welcomed.

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

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.