Rādīt 1 - 20 no 278 rezultātiem
Decision on how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) dealt with a complaint about alleged irregularities in two selection procedures for contract staff (RCT-2017-00048 and Frontex/17/CA/FGIII/26.1) (case 174/2021/KT)
Trešdiena | 30 novembris 2022
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.
Decision on how the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) evaluates tenders in procurement procedures for the provision of translation services (case 1841/2021/ABZ)
Trešdiena | 09 novembris 2022
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.
Otrdiena | 11 oktobris 2022
Izskatīt pieteikumu par divām norīkotām amata vietām Eiropas Savienības Pārraudzības misijā (EUMM) Gruzijā
Trešdiena | 14 septembris 2022
Pirmdiena | 29 augusts 2022
How the European Commission carried out a public consultation concerning the Sustainable Corporate Governance initiative
Otrdiena | 05 jūlijs 2022
How the Court of Justice of the European Union handled concerns about public comments made by an advocate general of the Court concerning the draft EU Digital Markets Act
Trešdiena | 29 jūnijs 2022
How the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group handled the move of a former Vice-President to become the CEO of an Italian bank
Otrdiena | 28 jūnijs 2022
Reply from the European Commission to the European Ombudsman on how it carried out a public consultation concerning the Sustainable Corporate Governance initiative
Otrdiena | 28 jūnijs 2022
Lēmums par to, vai ombude varētu noskaidrot, kā Eiropas Savienības Tiesa izskata bažas par Tiesas locekļu rīcības kodeksa ievērošanu (lieta 1072/2021/NH)
Pirmdiena | 27 jūnijs 2022
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.
Kā Eiropas Investīciju bankas (EIB) grupa attiecās pret tās bijušā priekšsēdētāja vietnieka nodomu strādāt par Itālijas bankas izpilddirektoru
Piektdiena | 24 jūnijs 2022
Decision on how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) responded to concerns regarding the composition of an interview panel in a selection procedure for EU staff in the field of taxation (case 1169/2020/KT)
Ceturtdiena | 23 jūnijs 2022
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.
Eiropas Komisijas nespēja atbildēt uz pieprasījumu un bažām par to, kā tā izskata sūdzību par pārkāpumu saistībā ar to, kā Vācija īsteno ES tiesību aktus nelikumīgi iegūtu līdzekļu legalizācijas novēršanas jomā — CHAP(2020)2935
Ceturtdiena | 16 jūnijs 2022
Kā Eiropas Komisija izskatīja sūdzību par to, ka Francija pārkāpj darba ņēmēju pārvietošanās brīvību, atskaitot sociālā nodrošinājuma iemaksas no Šveices izmaksātajām pensijām (CHAP (2014)2212)
Trešdiena | 08 jūnijs 2022
Decision on how the European Commission dealt with a complaint that Spain violates EU environmental law by allowing the construction of a wind farm in Cantabria (CHAP(2021)2758) (case 970/2022/ABZ)
Otrdiena | 07 jūnijs 2022
Decision on how the European Commission carried out a procurement procedure for the provision of expert medical services (case 1756/2021/LM)
Ceturtdiena | 02 jūnijs 2022
The European Commission organised a call for tenders for the provision of expert medical services for the European Union’s Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (‘the JSIS’). The complainant submitted a tender but was not successful.
The complainant asked the Commission for information about the successful tender and the contract value, but the Commission did not provide it to him. The complainant thus turned to the Ombudsman, raising concerns about the procurement procedure and questioning how his replies to the technical questionnaire had been evaluated.
The Ombudsman found that the Commission evaluated the complainant’s offer in line with the applicable rules and, therefore, there was no maladministration in this aspect of the complaint. However, the fact that the Commission provided the complainant with the information he had requested only in the course of the inquiry constituted maladministration. To address this, the Ombudsman made suggestions to ensure that, in the future, the Commission has in place measures to safeguard the rights of unsuccessful tenderers to avail of the redress mechanisms at their disposal.
Eiropas Komisijas nespēja sniegt atbildi uz sūdzību par Polijas atveseļošanas un noturības plāna neapstiprināšanu
Pirmdiena | 30 maijs 2022
Decision on how the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) carried out a selection procedure for the position of legal officer (case 1818/2021/FA)
Piektdiena | 20 maijs 2022
The case concerned how the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) carried out a selection procedure for the position of legal officer and assessed the complainant’s application.
The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a procedural error or a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s application and therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.
Decision on how the European Commission (Europe Direct) dealt with a complaint concerning the language immersion programme (EUSLE) in the Basque Country in Spain (case 670/2022/ABZ)
Trešdiena | 13 aprīlis 2022
Decision on how the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) carried out a selection procedure (case 921/2021/VB)
Otrdiena | 05 aprīlis 2022
The case concerned how the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) organised a remote ‘pre-screening written test’ in a selection procedure. The complainant took issue with the EIOPA’s decision to organise the test remotely and with how the test was organised. He also argued that, as the EIOPA offered two different dates on which candidates could take the test, there was a risk that candidates could share test questions with each other.
The Ombudsman found that both the decision to organise the pre‑screening test remotely and how the test was organised was reasonable. The EIOPA also took sufficient safeguards to minimise the risk that candidates could share test questions with each other.
The Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding that there was no maladministration by the EIOPA.