Meklēt izmeklēšanas

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.