Onderzoeken doorzoeken

The complainant filed an ‘opposition proceeding’ against an application for an EU trademark before the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Opposition proceedings enable holders of existing EU trademarks to challenge applications for new EU trademarks in order to protect their rights. At the beginning of the opposition proceeding, and in previous proceedings filed by the complainant, the EUIPO communicated with the complainant by post. During the course of the opposition proceeding, the EUIPO changed its communication policy and decided to move to electronic communications. Because of this, the complainant missed a request for evidence.

The Ombudsman found that the EUIPO’s failure to inform the complainant properly about its decision to communicate electronically constitutes maladministration, because it was inconsistent with the EUIPO’s past practices. Since the opposition proceeding had been closed, the Ombudsman closed the case without making a recommendation.

However, she suggested that the EUIPO informs users about changes in its communication policy through the same channel it used to communicate with them in the past.

The case concerned the time taken by the European Commission to deal with an appeal concerning its decision to apply a ‘medical reserve’ on a newly recruited staff member.

The Ombudsman wrote to the Commission reminding it that principles of good administration require EU institutions to take decisions within a reasonable time frame and that this is particularly important when the decision is related to the health of the person concerned and to social security cover.

Following updates from the Commission and the complainant showing that the Commission took a final decision on the appeal in March 2022, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that the substantive matter has been settled. The Ombudsman expects the Commission in future to handle similar procedures in a timely manner.

 

The case was about how the European Parliament dealt with two traineeship applications from a person who requested special arrangements for his applications due to dyslexia.

After first having rejected the complainant’s application, Parliament decided to interview him and offered him a traineeship. As the complainant had a long absence from his traineeship for medical reasons, Parliament offered him the possibility to apply again. However, Parliament rejected the complainant’s new application.

The complainant took issue with how Parliament handled his traineeship applications and with how it informed him that he could reapply for a traineeship.

The Ombudsman finds that Parliament should have been clearer in its communication with the complainant regarding the possibility to apply for a second traineeship. However, she finds no maladministration in how Parliament dealt with the complainant’s traineeship applications. Similarly, the fact that Parliament deals with requests for special arrangements made by traineeship candidates on a case-by-case basis is a reasonable approach.

The Ombudsman makes a suggestion for improvement to Parliament regarding how it informs traineeship candidates of the possibility to request special assistance in the context of the application and selection procedure and of how they should make such a request.