Meklēt izmeklēšanas

The case concerned a selection procedure organised by the European Parliament to recruit ‘intercultural and language professionals’. The complainant considered that the score he received in the ‘talent evaluator’ stage of the procedure, which aimed to evaluate candidates’ qualifications and professional experience, did not represent an accurate assessment of his relevant professional experience and his studies in the field.

The Ombudsman found no manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s talent evaluator and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. She identified some elements for Parliament to consider in future procedures and drew Parliament’s attention to them.

Sūdzības iesniedzēji, pilsoniskās sabiedrības organizāciju grupa, pauda bažas par to, kā Eiropas Komisija rīkoja sabiedrisko apspriešanu par “Ilgtspējīgas korporatīvās pārvaldības iniciatīvu”, kuras mērķis ir mudināt uzņēmumus labāk pārvaldīt ilgtspējas jautājumus savā darbībā. Sūdzības iesniedzēji jo īpaši apgalvoja, ka faktu kopsavilkuma ziņojumā, kas publicēts neilgi pēc sabiedriskās apspriešanas beigām, Komisija nav pienācīgi izklāstījusi to iedzīvotāju viedokļus, kuri iesniedza atbildes, izmantojot tiešsaistes kampaņu platformas.

Ombude pauda nožēlu par to, ka Komisija nav pieņēmusi iedzīvotājiem draudzīgāku pieeju tam, kā tā ziņojumā ziņoja par apspriešanos, jo īpaši sniedzot vairāk informācijas par atbildēm, kas saņemtas no tiem, kuri piedalījās kampaņās. Komisijas pieeja faktu kopsavilkuma ziņojumā vispār neziņot par kampaņas atbilžu saturu var atturēt organizācijas no kampaņu uzsākšanas nākotnē. Tas kaitētu sabiedrisko apspriešanu spējai apkopot sabiedrības viedokļus un pilsoņu iesaistei lēmumu pieņemšanas procesā.

Tā kā Komisija kopš tā laika ir pieņēmusi no tā izrietošo priekšlikumu direktīvai par uzņēmumu pienācīgu rūpību attiecībā uz ilgtspēju, turpmāka izmeklēšana šajā jautājumā nav pamatota. Tomēr ombude ieteica Komisijai veikt uzlabojumus, lai nodrošinātu, ka ziņojumos par sabiedriskās apspriešanas rezultātiem nākotnē tā sniedz labāku informāciju par atbildēm, kas saņemtas no iedzīvotājiem, izmantojot kampaņu platformas. Viņa arī ierosināja, lai Komisija sniegtu organizācijām skaidru informāciju par to, kā apspriedēs vislabāk var ņemt vērā atbildes, ko tās vāc kampaņās.

The complainant took part in two selection procedures for contract staff, organised by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) in 2018 and 2019. He was dissatisfied with how Frontex dealt with his administrative complaint about the evaluation of his application in the 2018 selection procedure, in which he was unsuccessful. He also complained that Frontex had failed to reply to his request for feedback regarding the 2019 selection procedure.

In the course of the inquiry, Frontex provided the complainant with feedback regarding the 2019 selection procedure. As regards the 2018 selection procedure, the Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how Frontex had assessed the complainant’s application. However, the Ombudsman considered that Frontex had not dealt with the complainant’s administrative complaint in an entirely satisfactory manner.

Given that the inquiry revealed no manifest error of assessment, the Ombudsman considered that no additional inquiries would be justified into that aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman suggested, however, that Frontex improve how it communicates to applicants the redress possibilities in the context of its staff selection procedures, as well as how it processes and keeps records of complaints by unsuccessful applicants.

The case concerned how the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) evaluated tenders in two procurement procedures for the provision of translation services. The complainant argued that the CdT was inconsistent in its evaluation, given that it had assessed its tenders differently in the past. It also argued that the CdT had wrongly assessed the complainant’s tenders against two criteria set out in the calls for tenders.

The Ombudsman found that the CdT correctly followed the methodology it put in place for assessing the tenders in the two procedures. She also took the view that there was no indication of a manifest error in how the CdT assessed the complainant’s tenders.

On that basis, the Ombudsman considered that there was no maladministration by the CdT and she closed the case. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman trusts that the CdT will provide more detailed information to tenderers about its assessment in future procedures, as clearer information at an early stage may reduce the risk of complaints such as the one that led to this inquiry.

Lieta attiecās uz Eiropas Savienības Tiesas (EST) ģenerāladvokāta publiskiem komentāriem par ES Digitālo tirgu akta projektu likumdošanas procesa laikā. Sūdzības iesniedzējs, patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības organizācija, uzskatīja, ka EST pienācīgi nerisina šo iespējamo rīcības kodeksa pārkāpumu.

Ombude uzdeva Tiesai vairākus jautājumus. EST apgalvoja, ka ombudei nebija pilnvaru izskatīt sūdzību, jo tas attiecās uz EST tiesas funkciju.

Ombudes viedoklis par viņas pilnvarām atšķīrās no EST viedokļa. Tomēr, tā kā turpmākai izmeklēšanai nebūtu jēgas, ombude lietu slēdza.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed a candidate in an interview in the context of a procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of taxation. The complainant considered that his low score in the interview was due to the fact that the interview panel did not include any expert in taxation. He was dissatisfied with how EPSO addressed his concerns.

In the course of the inquiry, EPSO provided adequate clarifications about the expertise of the selection board. The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how EPSO had carried out the interview. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.