Meklēt izmeklēšanas

The case concerned the eligibility criteria applied in the EU Election Observation Missions Roster (EOM Roster), an electronic system of candidates for observers and core team members participating in EU election observation missions. Observer positions are open to EU citizens and the nationals of Canada, Switzerland and Norway, based on arrangements with these countries. Core team positions are open to EU citizens only.

The complaint concerned changes in the EOM Roster introduced in January 2022, which affected candidates holding dual nationality. Following this change, candidates could change their declared nationality only once per year. Due to this timeframe, the complainant could not change his previously declared Swiss nationality to Polish, which he also held. This meant he could not apply for a core team position. He considered the new rules discriminatory and non-transparent.

In response to the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission admitted having not fully considered the impact of the new rules on the specific situation of candidates holding dual EU and non-EU nationality who wish to apply for core team positions. It committed to adjusting the rules and improving transparency around the rules. Following this, the complainant was able to apply for a core team position based on his Polish nationality.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry by considering that the Commission has settled the complaint.

The case concerned the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to allow a candidate, who was placed in COVID-19 quarantine, to reschedule her test in the context of a selection procedure for contract agent staff (CAST Permanent selection procedure).

The Ombudsman found that EPSO provided reasonable explanations as to why it was not able to provide an alternative testing date to the complainant. On that basis, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding that there was no maladministration by EPSO.

The case concerned the language requirements set by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of international cooperation. The complainant considered that these requirements discriminated against candidates whose first language is English, French, Portuguese or Spanish.

The Ombudsman found the explanations given by EPSO reasonable as to why it had chosen the language requirements, in particular, its explicit intention to prevent discrimination on the basis of language knowledge. She therefore found no maladministration in how the language requirements were set.

However, the Ombudsman understood how the complainant perceived that the language requirements placed at a disadvantage candidates with specific knowledge of a certain set of the required languages. To avoid such a perception in future selection procedures with similar specific language requirements, she therefore made a suggestion to EPSO on how it presents in the competition notice the language requirements and the rationale for choosing such requirements. 

The complainant was concerned that most of the information on the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) website is available in the English language only.

In the context of the inquiry, the Ombudsman reminded EMA of her recommendations on the use of official EU languages for the EU administration when communicating with the public.

EMA informed the Ombudsman that it is working on a language policy and a multilingual interface for its website.

The Ombudsman welcomed EMA’s plans to address the matter and closed the inquiry suggesting it follows up on its commitment in good time. The Ombudsman also suggested that, in the meantime, EMA seeks to make core information in all official EU languages more prominent on its website.

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.