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 105 rezultato (-ų)

Decision on how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) handled a complaint about the English test in a staff selection procedure (case 1913/2020/MMO)

Ketvirtadienis | 28 spalio 2021

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.

Decision in case 338/2020/VB on the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit a candidate to the next phase of a selection procedure for security officers for the EU institutions

Pirmadienis | 13 liepos 2020

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.

Sprendimas byloje 222/2020/EWM dėl Europos vaistų agentūros veiksmų registruojant vaistą Kalydeco, kuris naudojamas gydant vaikus, sergančius konkrečia cistinės fibrozės forma

Trečiadienis | 03 birželio 2020

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.

Decision in case 1481/2019/MH on how the European Commission dealt with an infringement complaint against the Netherlands concerning the importation of potentially unsafe lighters

Penktadienis | 06 kovo 2020

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.

Decision in case 41/2019/NH on the European Commission’s decision to recover an overpaid amount of child allowances from a staff member

Penktadienis | 11 spalio 2019

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.

Decision in case 757/2017/NF on how the European External Action Service grants certain benefits to its staff having worked in an EU delegation in a non-EU country

Ketvirtadienis | 27 birželio 2019

The case concerned the practice the European External Action Service (EEAS) has in place for granting certain benefits to staff members who are re-assigned to its headquarters in Brussels after having worked in an EU delegation in a non-EU country.

The complainant, an EEAS staff member who was transferred from a non-EU country to an EU delegation within the EU, considered that the EEAS was wrong not to grant him those benefits for the sole reason that his place of employment was not Brussels.

The Ombudsman found that the EEAS’s approach to granting the benefits is reasonable in light of its mobility policy for staff. However, to improve the framework the EEAS has in place in this area, the Ombudsman makes three suggestions for improvement.

Decision in case 643/2018/MDC on the European Investment Bank’s failure to reply to correspondence and its refusal to initiate a harassment procedure

Pirmadienis | 17 birželio 2019

The case concerned the European Investment Bank’s (EIB) failure to reply to correspondence and its refusal to initiate an investigation procedure into a harassment complaint.

After the Ombudsman got involved, the EIB replied and thereby settled the first aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman also found that, despite two shortcomings that she identified, overall the EIB dealt with the complainant’s harassment allegation in a reasonable way.

The Ombudsman also welcomes the fact that the EIB has adopted a new Dignity at Work policy.