Int għandek ilment kontra istituzzjoni jew korp tal-UE?

Tiftix ta’ inkjesti

Qed juri 1 - 20 minn 91 riżultati

Deċiżjoni fil-każ 21/2016/JAP dwar in-nuqqas tal-Kunsill tal-UE li jagħti aċċess għal opinjonijiet legali dwar proposti għal Regolamenti li jistabbilixxu l-Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur Pubbliku Ewropew u l-Aġenzija tal-Unjoni Ewropea għall-Kooperazzjoni fil-Ġustizzja Kriminali (EUROJUST)

Il-Ħamis | 07 Marzu 2019

Il-każ kien jikkonċerna r-rifjut tal-Kunsill tal-Unjoni Ewropea li jagħti aċċess sħiħ għal opinjonijiet legali dwar il-proposti leġiżlattivi għal Regolamenti li jistabbilixxu l-Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur Pubbliku Ewropew (EPPO) u l-Aġenzija tal-Unjoni Ewropea għall-Kooperazzjoni fil-Ġustizzja Kriminali (EUROJUST).

Matul l-istħarriġ tal-Ombudsman, il-Kunsill qabel li jiżvela tnejn mill-erba’ dokumenti, iżda baqa’ jirrifjuta li jiżvela bis-sħiħ iż-żewġ dokumenti l-oħra, għalkemm ta aċċess parzjali.

L-Ombudsman taċċetta li r-rifjut li jiġu żvelati l-opinjonijiet legali fl-intier tagħhom kien iġġustifikat fuq il-bażi illi dan setgħa jimmina l-protezzjoni tal-pariri legali u l-proċeduri tal-qorti. Għaldaqstant hija tagħlaq il-każ bis-sejba li ma kien hemm l-ebda amministrazzjoni ħażina, iżda tistieden lill-Kunsill biex jirrevedi r-rifjut tiegħu fid-dawl ta’ żviluppi futuri.

Decision in case 136/2016/MDC on the European Commission's refusal to revise a final audit report concerning a project co-financed by the European Union

It-Tlieta | 13 Diċembru 2016

The case was brought by an association of legal experts from all over the European Union which carried out a project co-financed by the European Commission. It concerned the alleged unfair recovery, following an audit, of sums wrongly considered ineligible under the Grant Agreement.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and concluded that, following her intervention, a solution had been found. She therefore closed the case.

Decision in case 1093/2016/JAP concerning the European Commission’s failure to reply to correspondence about problems with the submission of a grant proposal

Il-Ħamis | 01 Diċembru 2016

The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s messages concerning its difficulties with the submission of a grant proposal. Due to technical problems, the complainant was not able to apply through the Commission’s system PRIAMOS. Instead, it submitted its proposal by e-mail, which remained unanswered.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and asked the Commission to reply. In its reply, the Commission apologised for not having replied earlier. It said that it could not accept the complainant’s e-mail application because the system had functioned properly and the Commission had not been able to identify any attempts by the complainant to send the proposal via PRIAMOS before the deadline.

Access to documents

Il-Ħamis | 27 Ottubru 2016

Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 1922/2014/PL concerning the European Commission's refusal to grant public access to the evaluation reports of an EU-funded project

It-Tlieta | 30 Awwissu 2016

This case concerned the European Commission's refusal to grant full public access to the evaluation reports of the proposals for an EU-funded project on Roma in Albania.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission had correctly refused full access on the basis of the exception to public access which protects commercial interests. She therefore concluded that there was no maladministration by the Commission.

Deċiżjoni fil-każ OI/9/2014/MHZ - Proposti biex jitjieb il-monitoraġġ tal-Operazzjonijiet Konġunti ta' Ritorn tal-Frontex

It-Tlieta | 24 Novembru 2015

Il-politika dwar il-migrazzjoni tal-UE tinkludi r-ritorn volontarju jew furzat ta' migranti irregolari minn pajjiżi terzi (persuni li jfittxu l-ażil li l-applikazzjoni tagħhom tkun ġiet irrifjutata u persuni mingħajr permess ta' residenza validu) lejn il-pajjiż ta' oriġini tagħhom. Min-natura tagħhom stess, operazzjonijiet ta' ritorn furzat għandhom il-potenzjal li jinvolvu vjolazzjonijiet serji ta' drittijiet fundamentali. Din l-inkjesta fuq inizjattiva proprja fittxet li tiċċara kif Frontex, bħala l-Koordinatur tal-Operazzjonijiet Konġunti ta' Ritorn (JROs), tiżgura r-rispett għad-drittijiet fundamentali u d-dinjità umana tal-individwi li jkunu qed jiġu rritornati.

L-Ombudsman kisbet il-fehmiet ta' Frontex u tal-Uffiċjal tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tagħha, spezzjonat il-fajls ta' Frontex u rċeviet kontribuzzjonijiet mill-membri tan-Netwerk Ewropew tal-Ombudsmen, l-Aġenzija tal-Unjoni Ewropea għad-Drittijiet Fundamentali, l-Aġenzija tan-NU għar-Rifuġjati u għadd ta' NGOs. Hija sabet li minkejja li diġà sar ħafna xogħol, Frontex għandha bżonn ittejjeb it-trasparenza tax-xogħol tagħha ta' JRO, temenda l-Kodiċi ta' Kondotta tagħha f'oqsma bħalma huma eżaminazzjonijiet mediċi u l-użu tal-forza, u taħdem aktar mal-Istati Membri. Frontex għandha tagħmel kull ma tista' biex tippromwovi monitoraġġ indipendenti u effettiv ta' JROs.

L-Ombudsman tagħlaq l-inkjesta tagħha b'serje ta' proposti lil Frontex dwar kif tista' ttejjeb aktar l-operazzjonijiet tagħha f'dan il-qasam.

Deċiżjoni fil-każ 2004/2013/PMC - Il-ġestjoni tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea ta' aċċess għal dokumenti relatati mas-sorveljanza tal-internet mis-servizzi tal-intelliġenza tar-Renju Unit

Il-Ħamis | 05 Novembru 2015

Il-każ jikkonċerna ċ-ċaħda tal-Kummissjoni għal aċċess pubbliku ta' dokumenti li jikkonċernaw is-sorveljanza tal-internet mis-servizzi tal-intelliġenza tar-Renju Unit. L-Ombudsman irrakkomandat li l-Kummissjoni għandha tagħti aċċess għal dokument wieħed speċifiku (ittra mis-Segretarju għall-Affarijiet Barranin tar-Renju Unit lill-Viċi-President tal-Kummissjoni ta' dak iż-żmien) u, fil-każ tad-dokumenti l-oħra mitluba, li l-Kummissjoni għandha jew tiżvelahom jew tiġġustifika b'mod xieraq għaliex, fil-fehma tagħha, l-iżvelar ġie miċħud.

Il-Kummissjoni ddeċidiet li tiżvela l-ittra tas-Segretarju għall-Affarijiet Barranin tar-Renju Unit, u b'hekk taċċetta l-ewwel parti tar-rakkomandazzjoni tal-Ombudsman. Madankollu, żammet il-pożizzjoni tagħha li ma tiżvelax id-dokumenti l-oħrajn. Hija ġġustifikat din il-pożizzjoni abbażi li kienet għadha qiegħda tinvestiga l-kwistjoni dwar jekk il-programmi ta' sorveljanza tal-massa jiksrux il-liġi tal-UE, b'mod partikolari rigward id-dritt tal-individwu għall-protezzjoni tad-data. Il-Kummissjoni argumentat li sakemm l-investigazzjoni tagħha tkun ingħalqet b'mod definittiv, żvelar bikri tal-bqija tad-dokumenti kkonċernati jaffettwa ħażin id-djalogu bejn l-awtoritajiet tar-Renju Unit u l-Kummissjoni. B'mod iktar ġenerali, argumentat li l-kapaċità tagħha biex twettaq l-investigazzjoni tagħha b'mod effettiv, u biex tiddeċiedi fuq ir-rispons xieraq, għandha tkun imħarsa mir-riskju ta' pressjoni esterna. Fl-aħħar nett, il-Kummissjoni ma qisitx li kien hemm interess pubbliku ewlieni fl-iżvelar.

L-Ombudsman mhijiex konvinta li l-Kummissjoni ġġustifikat b'mod adegwat id-deċiżjoni tagħha biex tiċħad l-aċċess pubbliku għall-bqija tad-dokmenti mhux żvelati. Peress li la żvelat dawn id-dokumenti u lanqas ipprovdiet raġunijiet xierqa għaċ-ċaħda tal-aċċess pubbliku lilhom, huwa ċar li l-Kummissjoni rrifjutat ir-rakkomandazzjoni tal-Ombudsman b'rabta ma' dawn id-dokumenti. Barra minn hekk, l-Ombudsman innotat li l-Kummissjoni ma tidher li ħadet l-ebda azzjoni rigward l-investigazzjoni tagħha sa mill-2013. Għaldaqstant, l-Ombudsman issib li l-azzjonijiet tal-Kummissjoni f'dan il-każ jistgħu jitqiesu bħala amministrazzjoni ħażina u, fil-fatt, bħala amministrazzjoni ħażina serja meta tqis l-importanza ta' din il-kwistjoni partikolari għaċ-ċittadini tal-UE.

Decision in case 1977/2013/MDC on the European Commission’s assessment of an infringement complaint concerning restrictions to freedom of movement within the EU internal market

Il-Ġimgħa | 25 Settembru 2015

The complainant in this case, a Luxembourgish citizen, was excluded from competing for a post in France on the grounds that she is not a French national. The post in question was that of a non-presiding judge who was to represent the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at the French asylum Court. The complainant put it to the European Commission that the limiting of the post to French nationals appeared to be a breach of the provisions of EU law on the free movement of workers. When the Commission took the view that there was no infringement of EU law, the complainant contacted the Ombudsman.

The Commission took the view that an exception to the right of free movement of workers applied. This exception applies in the case of employment in the public service and is provided for in Article 45(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Commission acknowledged that a decision in this issue required a concrete assessment of the nature of the tasks and responsibilities of the non-presiding judge and it argued that it had made such an assessment. The Ombudsman noted that, as part of this assessment, the Commission had not contacted the French authorities in order to obtain further information about the post in question. The Ombudsman's initial proposal, therefore, was that the Commission should review its assessment of the infringement complaint and she suggested that the Commission should consult the French authorities. In replying to this proposal, the Commission maintained that it had sufficient information available to it when deciding the issue and that it was therefore unnecessary to contact the French authorities. Having considered its detailed reply to the proposal, the Ombudsman accepted that in this case the Commission did have sufficient information on which to base its decision. She therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration on the part of the Commission.