Meklēt izmeklēšanas

A call for tenders for the procurement of architectural services, organised by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), included the requirement that one member of the team that would provide the service be an architect registered with a specific association in Ireland. The complainant, an Irish architectural firm, contended that such a requirement is discriminatory, as other categories of professionals, such as registered building surveyors or chartered engineers, could provide the services listed in the call for tenders.

The Ombudsman found that Eurofound had not clearly demonstrated why the requirement was justified. However, she closed the inquiry with the finding that no further inquiries were justified because Eurofound has not awarded any contract. She nonetheless made a suggestion for improvement for any future calls for tenders for the provision of architectural services that Eurofound may organise.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of international cooperation.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications and, therefore, closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the decision by the European Commission’s Paymaster Office (PMO) to divide benefits derived from the child allowance between two divorced EU staff members. The complainant claimed that she should receive all derived benefits because she bears the majority of the costs for raising the child.

The Ombudsman finds the approach adopted by the PMO to decide on the division of derived benefits reasonable and in line with EU case-law. However, the Ombudsman finds that the PMO gave incoherent explanations to the complainant in its reply to her administrative complaint on the matter. However, with new internal administrative rules having been adopted that cover this area, the Ombudsman trusts that the PMO will ensure consistency in how the rules are applied and clarity in the information it gives to EU staff members. 

The Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries were justified in this case and closed the inquiry.

Lieta attiecās uz diviem gāzes cauruļvadu projektiem, ko 2018. gadā finansēja Eiropas Investīciju banka (EIB). Sūdzības iesniedzēji apgalvoja, ka EIB nav nodrošinājusi projektu ietekmes uz vidi pienācīgu novērtēšanu.

Pievēršot uzmanību ierobežotajai pārbaudei, ko ombuds var veikt šādos gadījumos, ombuds sāka izmeklēšanu un lūdza EIB iesniegt papildu dokumentus par sūdzību iesniedzēju apgalvojumiem. EIB arī tika lūgts izskaidrot galvenās izmaiņas veidam, kādā tā nodrošina vides kritēriju ievērošanu tās finansētajos projektos, ievērojot apņemšanos no 2021. gada beigām pārtraukt fosilā kurināmā enerģijas projektu finansēšanu.

EIB sniedza atbilstīgus skaidrojumus atbildes formā. Ombuds konstatēja, ka tā ir veikusi atbilstīgus pasākumus sava “pienācīgas rūpības procesa” ietvaros, lai nodrošinātu abu cauruļvadu ietekmes uz vidi pienācīgu novērtēšanu. Ombuds slēdza izmeklēšanu, konstatējot, ka EIB nav pieļāvusi administratīvu kļūmi.