Meklēt izmeklēšanas
Rādīt 1 - 20 no 22 rezultātiem
Decision of the European Ombudsman in the case 767/2021/MAS on how the European Commission dealt with a complaint that the United Kingdom breached EU law on the protection of whistle-blowers
Trešdiena | 12 maijs 2021
Decision in case 171/2019/NH on how the European External Action Service dealt with a request for whistleblower protection and a recruitment procedure in an EU mission
Pirmdiena | 19 oktobris 2020
The complainant was a staff member in an EU civilian mission who reported what he considered to be corrupt practices at the European External Action Service (EEAS). He asked the EEAS to protect him as a whistleblower, but the EEAS did not reply. The complainant became concerned that the EEAS advertised his post and carried out the selection procedure as a measure of retaliation against him. He appealed against the outcome of the selection procedure but the EEAS did not reply.
In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the EEAS replied to the complainant’s appeal and his request for whistleblower protection.
The Ombudsman also inquired into the complainant’s concern about retaliation and found no evidence of retaliation regarding the way in which the EEAS had carried out the selection procedure. She thus closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.
Decision of the European Ombudsman in case 2119/2018/LM on concerns about possible blacklisting by Europol of an applicant in staff selection procedures
Ceturtdiena | 05 marts 2020
The complainant turned to the Ombudsman because he was concerned that Europol had black-listed him from its staff recruitment procedures after he had raised concerns and complained to OLAF about a previous staff selection procedure.
The Ombudsman notes that the complainant is a highly qualified individual, who was shortlisted once by Europol. His concerns are thus understandable. In this case, however, the Ombudsman did not find evidence to suggest that the complainant had been unsuccessful in subsequent staff selection procedures for anything other than objective reasons. She thus closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.
Decision in case 1234/2018/TM on how an EU delegation to a non-EU country dealt with an individual who raised concerns about an EU-funded project
Ceturtdiena | 27 jūnijs 2019
The case concerned how an EU delegation to a non-EU country responded to an individual who made allegations of wrongdoing and misconduct by a member of staff at the delegation. The complainant wanted to know how to report these issues formally and receive whistleblower protection.
In the course of the inquiry, the European External Action Service (EEAS), which is responsible for the EU’s delegations, provided a better reply on the options available to the complainant. The EEAS thus settled the matter. To avoid similar problems arising in the future, the EEAS should publish on its website the rules that it applies in this area and the options available to individuals who might want to report wrongdoing. The EEAS could also consider adopting a similar approach to the one it applies for EU missions, which it introduced following an own-initiative inquiry of the Ombudsman.
Trauksmes cēlāja iespējamā iekļaušana Eiropola „melnajā sarakstā”saistībā ar personāla atlases procedūrām
Trešdiena | 13 marts 2019
Eiropas Ārējās darbības dienesta nespēja atbildēt uz sūdzības iesniedzēja pieprasījumu pēc trauksmes cēlēju aizsardzības un turpmāku apelāciju attiecībā uz darbā pieņemšanas procedūru ES misijā
Ceturtdiena | 14 februāris 2019
Alleged failure by the Commission to reply clearly to the complainant’s questions relating to the evaluation of its project submitted to a Horizon 2020 call
Trešdiena | 28 novembris 2018
Decision in case 1884/2017/JF on the European Commission’s failure to reply clearly to questions relating to the evaluation of a project submitted under a Horizon 2020 call for proposals
Pirmdiena | 26 novembris 2018
The case concerned the European Commission’s failure to reply clearly to a number of questions about the evaluation of a project proposal submitted in response to a call for proposals under Horizon 2020, the EU Research and Innovation Programme. The Commission provided the necessary replies during the Ombudsman’s inquiry and the matter was settled.
However, in the course of the inquiry the Ombudsman came across a matter not raised in the complaint, namely how the Commission deals with conflicts of interests of experts who evaluate project proposals. The Ombudsman found the Commission’s way of dealing with such conflicts could be improved. She therefore made a suggestion for improvement.
Lēmums lietā 366/2017/AMF par to, kā Eiropas Investīciju banka ir reaģējusi uz bažām par dzimumu diskrimināciju un vienlīdzīgām iespējām tās darbiniekiem
Trešdiena | 17 oktobris 2018
Lieta attiecās uz Eiropas Investīciju bankas (EIB) darbinieka ziņojumu par iespējamu dzimumu diskrimināciju EIB, jo īpaši vadošos amatos.
Ombude izmeklēja šo jautājumu un konstatēja, ka EIB nebija atbildējusi uz ziņojumu visaptveroši, tostarp nebija sniegusi pārskatu par pasākumiem, kas veikti dzimumu līdzsvara panākšanai. Ombude ieteica EIB novērst šos trūkumus un aicināja EIB uzlabot arī tās politiku attiecība uz trauksmes cēlējiem, iekļaujot noteikumu, ar ko paredz EIB termiņu, kurā jāatbild uz darbinieku veiktajiem ziņojumiem.
EIB ir pieņēmusi ombudes ierosinājumu un ieteikumus. Tāpēc ombude izmeklēšanu slēdza. Vienlaikus ombude rosina EIB pastiprināt centienus līdzsvarotas dzimumu pārstāvniecības panākšanai visos vadības līmeņos un censties panākt, lai līdz 2021. gadam vadošos amatos būtu vairāk nekā 33 % sieviešu, kā to paredz ar pašreizējo mērķi. Kā Eiropas Komisija norādījusi citviet, organizācijas, kas atbalsta daudzveidīgu darbaspēku un iekļauj visas grupas, sasniedz labākus rezultātus, spēj radīt vairāk inovāciju un pieņemt labākus lēmumus.
ES delegācijas Ukrainā nespēja pienācīgi atbildēt uz informācijas pieprasījumu par to, kā iesniegt sūdzību
Trešdiena | 22 augusts 2018
Lēmums lietā 429/2017/AMF par Eiropas Komisijas iespējamo nespēju aizsargāt ES darbinieci kā trauksmes cēlēju
Otrdiena | 29 maijs 2018
Sūdzību šajā lietā iesniedza Eiropas Parlamenta deputāts, un tā attiecas uz ES darbinieci, kura apgalvoja, ka viņa tikusi iespaidota viņas darba Eiropas Komisijā kontekstā. Sūdzības iesniedzējs norādīja, ka darbiniece bijusi trauksmes cēlēja un ka Komisija nav spējusi viņu aizsargāt.
Ombude izskatīja šo jautājumu un konstatēja, ka Komisija pret darbinieci ir izturējusies taisnīgi un saskaņā ar piemērojamiem noteikumiem.
Ombude izbeidza izmeklēšanu, konstatējot, ka Eiropas Komisija nav pieļāvusi administratīvu kļūmi.
Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 366/2017/AMF on the handling of alleged lack of equal opportunities for staff at the European Investment Bank and the functioning of its whistleblowing procedure
Ceturtdiena | 12 aprīlis 2018
The EEAS’s failure to reply to correspondence concerning alleged failures in a disciplinary investigation at EUPOL COPPS
Trešdiena | 14 marts 2018
EĀDD atbildes nesniegšana uz korespondenci saistībā ar varbūtēju nesekmīgu disciplināru izmeklēšanu EUPOL COPPS
Trešdiena | 14 marts 2018
OLAF’s failure to give sufficient reasons for its decision to close a complaint about money laundering in Spain
Piektdiena | 16 februāris 2018
Decisión en el asunto 1502/2017/PL en relación con la falta de una respuesta clara de la Oficina Europea de Lucha Contra el Fraude (OLAF) a una denuncia
Trešdiena | 14 februāris 2018
Decision in case 1517/2017/JF on the early termination of the complainant’s contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant by the European Parliament
Ceturtdiena | 08 februāris 2018
The case concerned the early termination of the complainant’s contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant. When the European Parliament failed to reply to his complaint about his contract being terminated, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.
In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Parliament explained why it considered the termination of the complainant’s contract to be justified. It also replied to the other concerns raised by the complainant.
After thoroughly examining the Parliament’s reply, and in the absence of any arguments from the complainant that could call the Parliament’s position into question, the Ombudsman concluded that no further inquiries into the complaint were justified.
Alleged failure by the Commission to reply clearly to the complainant’s questions relating to the evaluation of its project submitted to a Horizon 2020 call
Ceturtdiena | 14 decembris 2017
OLAF’s failure to give sufficient reasons for its decision to close a complaint about money laundering in Spain
Ceturtdiena | 14 septembris 2017