Procurar inquéritos

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit the complainant to a selection procedure for EU staff in the field of audit due to his lack of professional experience.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board had examined the information provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the application, and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the complainant’s education and professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of financial rules applicable to EU budget. 

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) calculated the complainant’s score in the field-related interview in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of taxation.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board calculated the complainant’s score. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) assessment of the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of scientific research (scientific knowledge management and communication).

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) assessment of the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of scientific research (scientific knowledge management and communication).

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) assessment of the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of scientific research (scientific knowledge management and communication).

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) assessment of the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of scientific research (scientific knowledge management and communication).

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned how the European Food Safety Authority handled a complaint from a former staff member about alleged harassment. The complainant considered that the administrative inquiry, which was carried out by external investigators, had taken too long.

The Ombudsman considered it regrettable that the investigation took so long but found, nevertheless, that the time taken was reasonable given the complexity and circumstances of the case.

The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting conference operators to the EU civil service.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned a recruitment procedure organised by the University of Ljubljana as part of an EU-funded project, under the Horizon 2020 programme. The complainant claimed that irregularities occurred in the recruitment procedure, and reported this to the Research Executive Agency (REA), which is responsible for the implementation of the programme. Dissatisfied with how REA dealt with his complaint, he turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman found that REA investigated the issue and advised the university on steps to take to address certain shortcomings it had identified. The university followed REA’s advice.

The Ombudsman therefore found that REA dealt appropriately with the matter and closed the case, finding no maladministration.

The case concerned the non-renewal of the complainant’s employment contract after he had worked for 11 years at Europol.

The Ombudsman noted that there is no obligation on EU agencies to renew fixed-term employment contracts. EU agencies also enjoy wide discretion as regards their internal organisation, which includes defining the conditions for contract renewal. In this case, Europol followed the applicable rules and there is no indication that it committed a manifest error of assessment nor that it abused its power by not renewing the complainant’s contract.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.