Ieškoti tyrimų

The complainant took issue with how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) carried out a staff selection procedure for the recruitment of a ‘command and control support officer’. In particular, he was concerned that the selection criteria had been set to favour the recruitment ofa specific candidate. The complainant also disagreed with the use of the ‘reserve list’ of successful candidates from the selection procedure to recruit a service desk manager, arguing that this did not correspond to the expertise that the selection procedure had evaluated.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into these concerns and inspected Frontex’s internal documents. The Ombudsman found that how Frontex carried out the selection procedure ensured equal treatment of candidates. The Ombudsman also found that it was reasonable to recruit a service desk manager from the reserve list in question. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the time taken by the European Commission to deal with an appeal concerning its decision to apply a ‘medical reserve’ on a newly recruited staff member.

The Ombudsman wrote to the Commission reminding it that principles of good administration require EU institutions to take decisions within a reasonable time frame and that this is particularly important when the decision is related to the health of the person concerned and to social security cover.

Following updates from the Commission and the complainant showing that the Commission took a final decision on the appeal in March 2022, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that the substantive matter has been settled. The Ombudsman expects the Commission in future to handle similar procedures in a timely manner.

 

The case concerned the assessment of the complainant’s English language skills in a selection procedure organised by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex). The complainant failed the oral part of the English test but was not convinced by the reasons given by the contracted test provider and Frontex.

The Ombudsman found that Frontex’s procedure for dealing with review requests and administrative complaints in relation to the language knowledge assessment done by its contractor was largely fit for purpose. Specifically in this case, Frontex’s actions were reasonable. However, in order for the review procedure to be fully effective, the contractor would have to provide Frontex with sufficiently detailed information about its assessment to allow Frontex to detect, on the basis of the concerns put forward by a candidate, indications of substantive errors. The Ombudsman is not convinced that this is the case at present.

In order to avoid similar problems arising in the future, the Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement and closed the inquiry.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit the complainant to the next phase of a selection procedure for security officers due to his lack of professional experience.

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

Byloje nagrinėta, kokių veiksmų ėmėsi Europos vaistų agentūra (EMA), gavusi prašymą registruoti vaistą Kalydeco. Kalydeco vartojamas gydant cistinę fibrozę, sunkią ligą, kurią sukelia tam tikros skirtingų genų mutacijos.

Skundo pateikėjas, kurio trejų metų sūnus serga konkrečia cistinės fibrozės forma, išreiškė susirūpinimą, kad EMA vėluoja registruoti vaistą, skirtą vaikams, sergantiems būtent šia konkrečia cistinės fibrozės forma, gydyti.

Atliekant tyrimą, EMA 2020 m. balandžio 20 d. informavo skundo pateikėją ir ombudsmenę, kad Agentūros mokslo srities specialistai, išnagrinėję visus, jų nuomone, būtinus mokslinius ir medicininius įrodymus, suteikė leidimą vartoti vaistą Kalydeco gydant vaikus, sergančius ta cistinės fibrozės forma, kuria serga ir skundo pateikėjo vaikas.

Ombudsmenė nenustatė nepagrįsto vėlavimo fakto. EMA veikė atvirai ir skaidriai bei, bendraudama su skundo pateikėju, parodė didelį rūpestį.

Ombudsmenė padarė išvadą, kad EMA veikloje netinkamo administravimo fakto nenustatyta, ir tyrimą užbaigė.

The case concerned the time taken by the European Commission to deal with a complaint from a manufacturer of lighters alleging that the Netherlands was infringing EU law. The complainant was particularly concerned that the Commission had not taken the next formal step in the procedure since July 2014, when it had asked the Netherlands for further information about the case.

The Ombudsman acknowledges that more than nine years to conduct an investigation into an infringement complaint is a very long time. However, based on the Commission’s extensive information gathering and its analysis, and the extent of its engagement with the Dutch authorities and the complainant, the Ombudsman has not found undue delay in the Commission’s handling of this case. Over the nine-year period, the Commission had approximately six rounds of information gathering with the Netherlands, while the complainant submitted reports and studies on more than 18 occasions. The complainant also met with the Commission at least 13 times.

As the Commission has now sent a letter to the complainant informing it of its intention to close the case, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified.

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to recover from a staff member an overpaid amount of EU child allowances. The allowances had been paid for the children of the staff member’s husband. The decision was based on the fact that national child allowances paid to the former wife of the staff member’s husband had not been deducted from the EU allowances.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission was entitled to recover the amounts because the staff member should have realised that she was being paid too much. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.