The case concerned how the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) addressed allegations of fundamental rights violations in its activities on the Greek island of Samos. The complainants were concerned that the way caseworkers deployed in the EUAA asylum support teams conducted interviews with vulnerable asylum seekers was against EU law, and that the EUAA had failed to address this. In addition, the complainants were concerned with how the EUAA dealt with the asylum seekers’ reports of pushbacks.

The Ombudsman found that, at the time of the complaint, the EUAA had failed to ensure that caseworkers deployed in its asylum support teams were prepared to properly conduct interviews with vulnerable asylum seekers, including as regards how to take into account indicators of vulnerabilities when these emerge for the first time during the asylum interview. The Ombudsman further found that the EUAA had failed to provide vulnerable asylum seekers with an appropriate procedure to report mistakes made during interviews and to have such reports reviewed by the EUAA. The Ombudsman found that this constituted maladministration and made four recommendations to the EUAA to address the shortcomings.

The Ombudsman also sent these recommendations to her counterparts from the European Network of Ombudsmen (ENO), seeking their views on how compliance with fundamental rights is ensured in the cooperation between EUAA caseworkers and national asylum officials.

In addition, the Ombudsman identified important shortcomings in relation to how the EUAA dealt with the asylum seekers’ disclosure of experiences of pushbacks during interviews. As the EUAA started implementing measures to remedy these shortcomings during the Ombudsman’s inquiry, she did not find maladministration but instead made two suggestions for improvement.

Byla buvo susijusi su konsultavimo įmone, kurią Europos kovos su sukčiavimu tarnyba (OLAF) tyrė dėl įtariamų pažeidimų ES finansuojamuose projektuose. OLAF informavo įmonę, kad baigė tyrimą, ir pateikė Komisijai finansines ir administracines rekomendacijas. Nors OLAF informavo įmonę, kad ji gali kreiptis į OLAF procesinių garantijų kontrolierių, OLAF nepateikė aiškios informacijos apie taikytiną skundo pateikimo terminą. Tai reiškia, kad įmonė skundą pateikė pasibaigus terminui, o kontrolierius skundą atmetė.

Ombudsmenė nustatė, kad nepateikusi skundo pateikėjui aiškios informacijos, visų pirma dėl tyrimo pabaigos datos, OLAF ėmėsi netinkamo administravimo veiksmų. Tačiau ombudsmenas laikėsi nuomonės, kad skundo pateikėjui nebuvo pateikta tinkama rekomendacija šiuo klausimu. Vis dėlto ji pateikė pasiūlymą, kuriuo siekiama užkirsti kelią tokios problemos atsiradimui ateityje panašiais atvejais.