Chcieliby Państwo wnieść skargę przeciwko instytucji lub organowi UE?

Szukaj dochodzeń

Wyszukiwanie tekstowe

Typ dokumentu

Instytucja, której sprawa dotyczy

rodzaj rozstrzygnięcia

Numer sprawy


Rozpiętość czasowa

Słowa kluczowe

Wpisz stare słowa kluczowe (przed 2016 r.)

Wyświetla 1 - 20 z 352 wyników

Decision in case 964/2020/JN on how the European Commission evaluated a tender in a public procurement procedure for the translation of a report on the judicial reform in Cyprus

Wtorek | 11 maja 2021

The case concerned the European Commission´s decision to reject a tender in a public procurement procedure for the translation of a report on the judicial reform in Cyprus. The complainant considered that the Commission had been wrong in rejecting his tender because it considered he did not meet the specifications for the required experience. In the complainant’s view, the Commission should have asked him for clarifications.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission acted reasonably, and closed the inquiry finding no maladministration. She trusts that, going forward, the Commission will ensure that unsuccessful tenderers receive an adequate explanation of the reasons why their tender has been rejected, without having to ask for clarification.

Decision in case 1035/2019/PB on alleged maladministration by the EU’s Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency in a project audit

Wtorek | 04 maja 2021

The case concerned alleged wrongdoing in the EACEA’s handling of certain matters related to a project audit. Specifically the complainant alleged retribution by the EACEA against a project partner which had in another context complained to the European Ombudsman. The complainant also contended that there was a lack of transparency and unequal treatment.

The Ombudsman found that the EACEA could have provided more information and better explanations to the complainant, and made a corresponding request to which the EACEA provided an adequate reply.

Regarding the alleged retribution, the Ombudsman pointed out that retribution by an EU institution against someone for having complained to the European Ombudsman is maladministration of a particularly serious nature. By implication, an allegation of such an act requires specific and convincing evidence to be put forward. In the present case, no such evidence was produced.

The Ombudsman also found that the allegation of unequal treatment could not be upheld.

The Ombudsman accordingly closed the case.