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 80 rezultātiem

Recommendation on how the European Defence Agency handled the applications of its former Chief Executive to take on senior positions at Airbus (OI/3/2021/KR)

Ceturtdiena | 15 jūlijs 2021

The Ombudsman conducted an inquiry on her own initiative into the decision of the European Defence Authority (EDA) to allow its former Chief Executive to take up two senior positions with Airbus, an aerospace company.

The Ombudsman’s inquiry also looked into how the EDA dealt with the fact that the former Chief Executive took up his new positions before the EDA had authorised him to do so, which is a breach of the EDA’s Staff Regulations.

The Ombudsman found that the conditions imposed on the former Chief Executive by the EDA in its authorising decision were insufficient when measured against the risks, and could not be monitored and enforced. There were also shortcomings in how the EDA assessed the risk of conflicts of interest.

The EDA should have instead applied stronger conditions and forbidden the former Chief Executive from taking up the position which gave rise to the greatest risk of conflict with the EDA’s legitimate interest. Not doing so amounted to maladministration by the EDA.

Based on these findings, the Ombudsman issued two recommendations:

(i) In future, the EDA should forbid its senior staff from taking up positions after their term of office where a clear conflict of interest arises with the legitimate interests of the EDA;

(ii) The EDA should set out the criteria for forbidding such moves, in order to give clarity to senior staff. Applicants for senior EDA posts should be informed of the criteria when they apply.

Lēmums lietā 2168/2019/KR par Eiropas Banku iestādes lēmumu apstiprināt tās izpilddirektora lūgumu kļūt par finanšu lobija grupas izpilddirektoru

Trešdiena | 18 novembris 2020

Lieta attiecās uz Eiropas Banku iestādes (EBI) lēmumu ļaut tās izpilddirektoram ieņemt lobija grupas izpilddirektora amatu.

Ombude konstatēja divus administratīvas kļūmes gadījumus un sniedza trīs ieteikumus, lai turpmāk izvairītos no līdzīgām problēmām.

Pirmkārt, EBI, kad nepieciešams, ir jāizmanto iespēja aizliegt saviem vadošajiem darbiniekiem ieņemt noteiktus amatus pēc pilnvaru termiņa beigām. Jebkuram šādam aizliegumam jābūt uz ierobežotu laiku, piemēram, uz diviem gadiem.

Otrkārt, EBI ir jānosaka kritēriji, kad tā turpmāk aizliegs šādus pasākumus, lai vadošajiem darbiniekiem radītu skaidrību. Pretendenti uz vadošajiem EBI amatiem ir jāinformē par kritērijiem tad, kad viņi uz tiem piesakās.

Treškārt, EBI ir jāievieš iekšējās procedūras, lai, tiklīdz ir zināms, ka tās darbinieks pāriet uz citu darbu, viņu piekļuve konfidenciālai informācijai nekavējoties tiktu pārtraukta.

Pēc tam, kad EBI pieņēma ombudes ieteikumus un noteica pasākumus to īstenošanai, ombude izmeklēšanu izbeidza.

Ombude ir pārliecināta, ka EBI ieviestā politika palīdzēs tai nākotnē izvairīties no kaitējumu radošām sekām darbinieku pāriešanas uz citu darbu gadījumā. Citām ES iestādēm un aģentūrām ir jāizmanto šie jaunie EBI drošības pasākumi un jāpārskata savi noteikumi.

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 2168/2019/KR on how the European Banking Authority handled the move of its former Executive Director to become CEO of a financial industry lobby

Ceturtdiena | 07 maijs 2020

The Ombudsman received a complaint about the decision of the European Banking Authority (EBA) to allow its Executive Director to take up a position as CEO of an association representing banks, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME).

The Ombudsman conducted an inquiry, inspected the relevant EBA documents and found maladministration, first, in that the EBA should have forbidden the job move. While the EBA adopted extensive restrictions, these are not sufficient when measured against the risks involved. The Ombudsman considers that if this move does not justify the application of the option, set out in the Staff Regulations, to forbid a staff member accepting a job offer, no move would.

Second, there was maladministration in that the EBA did not, once notified of the planned move, immediately withdraw its Executive Director’s access to confidential information.

The Ombudsman issues three recommendations to the EBA, which should (i) where necessary in future, invoke the option of forbidding its senior staff from taking up certain positions after their term-of-office. Any such prohibition should be time-limited, for example, for two years; (ii) set out criteria for when it will forbid such moves in future so as to give clarity to senior staff. Applicants for senior EBA posts should be informed of the criteria when they apply; and (iii) put in place internal procedures so that once it is known that a member of its staff is moving to another job, their access to confidential information is cut off with immediate effect.

The EBA should reply to these recommendations within three months.