Int għandek ilment kontra istituzzjoni jew korp tal-UE?

Tiftix ta’ inkjesti

Każ
Firxa tad-data
Keywords
Jew ipprova keywords antiki (Qabel l-2016)

Qed juri 1 - 20 minn 171 riżultati

Recommendation on how the European Defence Agency handled the applications of its former Chief Executive to take on senior positions at Airbus (OI/3/2021/KR)

It-Tlieta | 13 Lulju 2021

The Ombudsman conducted an inquiry on her own initiative into the decision of the European Defence Authority (EDA) to allow its former Chief Executive to take up two senior positions with Airbus, an aerospace company.

The Ombudsman’s inquiry also looked into how the EDA dealt with the fact that the former Chief Executive took up his new positions before the EDA had authorised him to do so, which is a breach of the EDA’s Staff Regulations.

The Ombudsman found that the conditions imposed on the former Chief Executive by the EDA in its authorising decision were insufficient when measured against the risks, and could not be monitored and enforced. There were also shortcomings in how the EDA assessed the risk of conflicts of interest.

The EDA should have instead applied stronger conditions and forbidden the former Chief Executive from taking up the position which gave rise to the greatest risk of conflict with the EDA’s legitimate interest. Not doing so amounted to maladministration by the EDA.

Based on these findings, the Ombudsman issued two recommendations:

(i) In future, the EDA should forbid its senior staff from taking up positions after their term of office where a clear conflict of interest arises with the legitimate interests of the EDA;

(ii) The EDA should set out the criteria for forbidding such moves, in order to give clarity to senior staff. Applicants for senior EDA posts should be informed of the criteria when they apply.

Id-Deċiżjoni dwar ir-rifjut tas-Servizz Ewropew għall-Azzjoni Esterna (SEAE) li jagħti aċċess pubbliku sħiħ għar-rapport annwali tiegħu dwar l-implimentazzjoni tal-Kooperazzjoni Strutturata Permanenti (PESCO) tal-UE fl-2020 (il-każ 786/2021/LM)

Il-Ħamis | 08 Lulju 2021

L-ilmentatur fittex li jingħata aċċess pubbliku għar-rapport annwali dwar l-implimentazzjoni tal-Kooperazzjoni Strutturata Permanenti (PESCO) tal-UE fl-2020

Is-servizz Ewropew għall-Azzjoni Esterna (SEAE) ddivulga dikjarazzjonijiet introduttorji u ġenerali mir-rapport u rreveda l-partijiet li fadal. Huwa qal li d-divulgazzjoni tal-partijiet riveduti tista’ ddgħajjef il-protezzjoni tal-interessi pubbliċi fir-rigward tar-relazzjonijiet internazzjonali u fir-rigward tad-difiża u kwistjonijiet militari.

L-ispezzjoni tad-dokument ikkonfermat li r-rapport fih informazzjoni sensittiva ħafna li tista’ tipperikola d-difiża u kwistjonijiet militari. L-Ombudsman sabet li d-divulgazzjoni sħiħa tal-informazzjoni li tinsab fid-dokument tippermetti lil partijiet terzi u lil entitajiet ostili jantiċipaw ir-riżorsi li l-UE se tkun tista’ tuża u li jtejbu l-kapaċitajiet tagħhom stess sabiex jikkombattu l-approċċ politiku u strateġiku estern tal-UE. L-Ombudsman sabet ukoll li d-dipendenza tas-SEAE mill-eċċezzjoni tar-relazzjonijiet internazzjonali kienet konvinċenti. Għalhekk, l-Ombudsman ikkonkludiet li l-SEAE kien iġġustifikat fir-rifjut tal-aċċess u għalqet l-investigazzjoni u ma sabet l-ebda amministrazzjoni ħażina.

Decision in case 163/2020/NH on the failure by the European External Action Service (EEAS) to reply to correspondence concerning alleged irregularities in a disciplinary investigation in an EU civilian mission

Il-Ġimgħa | 04 Ġunju 2021

The case concerned the failure by the European External Action Service (EEAS) to reply to a letter concerning a disciplinary investigation that had taken place in 2017 in an EU civilian mission.

The Ombudsman found that the EEAS had repeatedly failed to reply to the complainant’s letters. Even if the EEAS considered that it could not reply on the substance, due to ongoing legal proceedings, it should have replied and explained this to the complainant. The failure to do so was maladministration.

Since, in the context of the inquiry, the EEAS explained why it believes it cannot give a substantive reply to the complainant, the Ombudsman did not make a recommendation to this end. She trusts, however, that the EEAS will take this finding on board going forward.