Tiftix ta’ inkjesti

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.

L-ilmentaturi, grupp ta’ organizzazzjonijiet tas-soċjetà ċivili, kienu kkonċernati dwar kif il-Kummissjoni Ewropea wettqet konsultazzjoni pubblika dwar l-“Inizjattiva ta’ Governanza Korporattiva Sostenibbli”, li għandha l-għan li tħeġġeġ lill-kumpaniji jiġġestixxu aħjar il-kwistjonijiet ta’ sostenibbiltà fl-operazzjonijiet tagħhom. B’mod partikolari, l-ilmentaturi qalu li, fir-rapport ta’ sommarju fattwali ppubblikat ftit wara l-għeluq tal-konsultazzjoni pubblika, il-Kummissjoni ma ppreżentatx b’mod xieraq l-opinjonijiet taċ-ċittadini li ssottomettew tweġibiet permezz ta’ pjattaformi tal-kampanja online.

L-Ombudsman sabet li huwa ta’ dispjaċir li l-Kummissjoni ma adottatx approċċ aktar favur iċ-ċittadini dwar kif hija rrapportat dwar il-konsultazzjoni fir-rapport, l-aktar billi tipprovdi aktar informazzjoni dwar it-tweġibiet mibgħuta mingħand dawk li ħadu sehem fil-kampanja. L-approċċ tal-Kummissjoni li ma tirrapporta xejn dwar il-kontenut tat-tweġibiet tal-kampanja fir-rapport tas-sommarju fattwali jirriskja li jiskoraġġixxi lill-organizzazzjonijiet milli jniedu kampanji fil-futur. Dan ikun detrimentali għall-kapaċità tal-konsultazzjonijiet pubbliċi li jiġbru opinjonijiet mill-pubbliku u għall-involviment taċ-ċittadini fil-proċess tat-teħid ta’ deċiżjonijiet.

Peress li minn dak iż-żmien ’l hawn il-Kummissjoni adottat il-proposta riżultanti għal Direttiva dwar id-Diliġenza Dovuta għas-Sostenibbiltà Korporattiva, mhuma ġġustifikati l-ebda inkjesti oħra dwar din il-kwistjoni. L-Ombudsman, madankollu, għamlet suġġeriment għal titjib lill-Kummissjoni bil-ħsieb li jiġi żgurat li, fir-rapporti tagħha dwar ir-riżultati tal-konsultazzjonijiet pubbliċi fil-futur, tipprovdi informazzjoni aħjar dwar ir-rispons li tirċievi mingħand iċ-ċittadini permezz ta’ pjattaformi tal-kampanja. Hija ssuġġeriet ukoll li l-Kummissjoni għandha tipprovdi informazzjoni ċara lill-organizzazzjonijiet dwar kif ir-rispons li jiġbru permezz ta’ kampanji jistgħu jitqiesu l-aħjar fil-kuntest tal-konsultazzjonijiet.

 

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.