Vai vēlaties iesniegt sūdzību par ES iestādi vai struktūru?

Meklēt izmeklēšanas

Teksta meklēšana

Dokumentu veids

Iesaistītā iestāde

Vienošanās veids

Lietas numurs

Valoda

Datumu amplitūda

Atslēgas vārdi

Vai izmēģiniet vecus atslēgvārdus (līdz 2016. gadam)

Rādīt 1 - 20 no 177 rezultātiem

Decision in case 193/2021/AMF on the European Anti-Fraud Office´s refusal to provide public access to a call for tenders for an EU funded project that was the object of an investigation

Ceturtdiena | 17 jūnijs 2021

The case concerned a request for access to a public call for tenders for an EU funded project that was investigated by the European Anti-Fraud Office. OLAF had argued that providing the complainant with the call (which is already in the public domain) would damage its decision-making process and the purpose of its investigations because it would allow the complainant to identify the project in question and therefore the subject matter of the investigation. The Ombudsman´s inquiries team asked OLAF to clarify how its decision making process and the purpose of its investigations could be damaged when the call was public and the investigation was closed in 2019.

Taking into account the arguments put forward by OLAF in its reply to the Ombudsman´s inquiries team, the Ombudsman agreed that the disclosure of the call would undermine OLAF´s decision-making process and the purpose of its investigations. Therefore, the inquiry was closed with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case OI/2/2020/NH on the European Anti-Fraud Office’s refusal to grant public access to documents related to its investigation of possible links between Japan Tobacco International (JTI) and a family member of the Syrian President

Trešdiena | 29 jūlijs 2020

The case concerned how the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) handled a request by a journalist for public access to documents about an OLAF investigation into a tobacco product manufacturer and its possible links to a family member of the Syrian President.

OLAF invoked the general presumption that public access to the requested documents would be particularly detrimental to its ability to fulfil its mission to fight fraud in the public interest. OLAF therefore concluded, without assessing each document individually, that access to the documents could not be granted.

The Ombudsman found that OLAF had correctly applied the EU rules on public access to documents. After reviewing the final OLAF report in this case, the Ombudsman found that only one short section was relevant to the complainant’s request.  

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding that there had not been maladministration by OLAF. She nevertheless suggested to OLAF that it assess the relevant section of the report and consider granting public access to it.

Decision in case 1235/2019/JF on the European Commission’s handling of concerns about an EU co-funded project in Malawi

Ceturtdiena | 26 marts 2020

The case was about a project developed by a local organisation and co-financed by the EU in Africa.

The complainant raised concerns with the Commission about the local organisation. The Commission then contracted an auditor, who made a number of recommendations to improve the organisation’s governance. The complainant then turned to the Ombudsman alleging that the Commission had failed to ensure that the organisation implemented the auditor’s recommendations.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had in fact followed up on how the organisation implemented the recommendations and that there was no maladministration. She invited the Commission to update the complainant on the implementation of the recommendations.

Lēmums lietā 193/2020/EWM par Eiropas Komisijas īstenoto atteikumu piešķirt publisku piekļuvi juridiskam atzinumam, kas saistīts ar iespējamu interešu konfliktu Čehijā

Trešdiena | 25 marts 2020

Izskatāmā lieta attiecās uz Komisijas atteikumu piešķirt publisku piekļuvi juridiskā dienesta atzinumam, kas saistīts ar Čehijas premjerministra iespējamu interešu konfliktu.

Sūdzības iesniedzējs uzskatīja, ka pastāv izteikta sabiedrības interese par dokumentu atklāšanu. Viņaprāt, iedzīvotājiem ir jābūt informētiem par šā juridiskā atzinuma saturu, lai viņi varētu veidot savu neatkarīgu viedokli par iesaistīto pušu rīcību un sniegto argumentu ticamību.

Ombude secināja, ka šobrīd sabiedrības interese par juridiskā atzinuma atklāšanu nav svarīgāka par sabiedrības interesēm aizsargāt Komisijas iespējas veikt revīzijas, kuru mērķis ir nodrošināt ES līdzekļu aizsardzību un tiesiskuma ievērošanu. Tāpēc ombude izbeidza izmeklēšanu, nekonstatējot administratīvu kļūmi.

Lēmums lietā 724/2019/MIG par Eiropas Komisijas atteikumu piešķirt pilnīgu publisku piekļuvi dokumentam, kas saistīts ar iespējamo interešu konfliktu revīzijām Čehijā

Trešdiena | 25 marts 2020

Izskatāmā lieta attiecās uz lūgumu piešķirt publisku piekļuvi Čehijas iestādēm adresētai Eiropas Komisijas vēstulei par revīzijām saistībā ar iespējamo interešu konfliktu Čehijā. Komisija atteicās publiskot vēstuli, apgalvojot, ka informācijas atklāšana apdraudētu revīziju sekmīgu pabeigšanu.

Ombude uzskatīja, ka Komisijai vajadzēja piešķirt daļēju piekļuvi vēstulei, tādējādi pārliecinot un apstiprinot sabiedrībai, ka tā veic attiecīgus pasākumus ES līdzekļu aizsardzībai.

Komisija pieņēma šādu risinājumu un piešķīra sūdzības iesniedzējam piekļuvi tiem vēstules punktiem, kurus ombude uzskatīja par atklājamiem. Ombude uzskata, ka tādējādi Komisija ir apmierinājusi sūdzību. Tādēļ ombude slēdz izmeklēšanu.

Decision in case 175/2019/PL on how the European Investment Bank handled a complaint about a project it financed in Spain

Pirmdiena | 23 marts 2020

The case concerned the time it was taking the European Investment Bank (EIB) to investigate a complaint about irregularities in a project called “Castilla y León Climate Change”, which the Bank financed.

In the course of the inquiry, the EIB informed the Ombudsman that it had concluded the investigation.

The Ombudsman finds that the time it took the EIB to investigate the matter was reasonable considering the complexity of the issue. Thus, the Ombudsman closes the inquiry finding that there was no maladministration.