Meklēt izmeklēšanas

The case concerned the European Commission´s decision to reject a tender in a public procurement procedure for the translation of a report on the judicial reform in Cyprus. The complainant considered that the Commission had been wrong in rejecting his tender because it considered he did not meet the specifications for the required experience. In the complainant’s view, the Commission should have asked him for clarifications.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission acted reasonably, and closed the inquiry finding no maladministration. She trusts that, going forward, the Commission will ensure that unsuccessful tenderers receive an adequate explanation of the reasons why their tender has been rejected, without having to ask for clarification.

Lieta attiecās uz jaunas ES datubāzes izveidi informācijai par vielām, kas rada bažas, izstrādājumos (SCIP datubāze) saskaņā ar ES tiesību aktiem par atkritumiem. Sūdzības iesniedzējs, kāda Eiropas tirdzniecības apvienība, uzskatīja, ka obligātās informācijas kopums, kas izstrādājumu piegādātājiem jāsniedz Eiropas Ķimikāliju aģentūrai (ECHA), pārsniedz to, kas prasīts ES tiesību aktos par ķimikālijām.

Sūdzība attiecas uz interpretāciju vairākiem noteikumiem ES tiesību aktos par atkritumiem un ķīmiskām vielām. Pēc ombudes domām, Komisija un ECHA ir pieņēmušas attiecīgo noteikumu pamatotu interpretāciju. Kaut arī sūdzības iesniedzēja interpretācija ir atšķirīga, ar to nepietiek, lai apgalvotu, ka Komisijas un ECHA interpretācija ir nepareiza. Strīda gadījumā pareizo interpretāciju nosaka Tiesa. Ombude līdz ar to konstatēja, ka nav pieļauta administratīva kļūme, un lietu izbeidza.

The case concerned the European Commission´s decision to reject almost EUR 50 000 in the context of an EU-funded project supporting education in Somalia.

The Ombudsman made the preliminary finding that the Commission´s decision was not fair. She made a corresponding proposal for a solution.

The Commission disagreed with the Ombudsman´s proposal and provided additional explanations for its position. The grant agreement, it said, contains a list of non-eligible costs including salary costs of the personnel of national administrations, at issue here. Declaring the costs eligible, although they are clearly ineligible, could create a precedent that the rules in question can be circumvented. In light of these and further explanations, the Ombudsman reached the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified. The grant agreement, read as a whole, supports the Commission´s position sufficiently.

However, the Ombudsman considered it regrettable that an organisation that successfully carried out a project in good faith and incurred the costs in question, should find itself in this situation. She suggested that the Commission consider how it could improve the clarity of the information in its ‘grant agreements’ with entities selected to carry out EU-funded projects, to avoid similar cases arising in the future.

The case concerned the ‘School Education Gateway’, an online platform for school education that is funded by Erasmus+, the EU's programme to support education, training, youth and sport in Europe. The complainant is the owner and manager of an education and training provider, which offered courses on the platform.  

The European Commission, which is responsible for the programme, suspended the complainant’s company after it had established that the complainant’s company had repeatedly violated the platform’s terms and conditions.

The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found that the Commission’s actions were reasonable and proportionate. She therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.