Tem uma queixa contra uma instituição ou organismo da UE?
Procurar inquéritos
A apresentar 1 - 20 de 22 resultados
Tratamento dado pela Agência de Execução do Conselho Europeu da Inovação e das PME (EISMEA) a uma proposta de financiamento do Horizonte 2020 para o instrumento «Accelerator» da fase-piloto do CEI
Quarta-Feira | 09 fevereiro 2022
Não comunicação ao queixoso, por parte da Comissão Europeia, das medidas tomadas no âmbito da sua queixa por infração - CHAP(2020)01279
Quarta-Feira | 28 julho 2021
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
Sexta-Feira | 04 junho 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.
Decision in case 1498/2019/NH on the European Parliament not sending its reply to an access to documents request by e-mail
Quinta-Feira | 28 maio 2020
The case concerned the refusal by the European Parliament to send a decision refusing public access to documents by e-mail.
The Ombudsman found that Parliament’s reply to the complainant was reasonable in the given context, as the complainant had already received the decision by registered post.
The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there had been no maladministration by Parliament in this case.
Alegada ausência de resposta da Comissão Europeia a correspondência relativa à situação de menores alojados num centro de partida na Dinamarca
Quarta-Feira | 13 novembro 2019
Resposta do Parlamento Europeu a um pedido de acesso a documentos por via postal e não por correio eletrónico
Segunda-Feira | 14 outubro 2019
Alegada falta de resposta da Comissão a correspondência relativa a uma queixa de infração contra as autoridades francesas sobre a execução do programa regional Nord-Pas de Calais 2014-2020 - CHAP(2018)02238
Terça-Feira | 24 setembro 2019
Decision in case 729/2019/MMO on how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint concerning an alleged violation of the Habitats Directive in the Republic of Cyprus
Quinta-Feira | 18 julho 2019
Decision in case 484/2019/MMO on how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint concerning an alleged violation of the Habitats Directive in the Republic of Cyprus
Quarta-Feira | 17 julho 2019
Decision of the European Ombudsman in the above case on the European Commission’s alleged failure to certify to national authorities the employment periods of a former EURATOM staff member for pension purposes
Segunda-Feira | 15 julho 2019
Decision in case 1178/2018/STI on the European Commission´s failure to keep the complainant informed about the state of play in an infringement procedure (CHAP(2016)01831) against Spain
Quinta-Feira | 16 agosto 2018
Ausência de informação da Comissão ao queixoso sobre o andamento da sua queixa por infração contra Espanha (CHAP(2016)01831)
Sexta-Feira | 13 julho 2018
Decision in case 642/2018/TM on the European Commission’s refusal to reimburse certain medical expenses to a staff member
Quarta-Feira | 23 maio 2018
The case concerned how the European Commission dealt with a claim for the reimbursement of medical expenses from a staff member. The Commission refused to reimburse certain expenses claimed under its health insurance scheme by the staff member, even after he made an official administrative complaint, as provided for under the EU’s Staff Regulations.
The Ombudsman’s inquiry into the matter did not reveal any maladministration by the Commission.
Décision dans l’affaire 2132/2017/STI portant sur l’absence de réponse de la Délégation de l’Union européenne en République du Mali à une correspondance concernant la cessation d'un contrat lié à une mission d'experts au Mali
Sexta-Feira | 18 maio 2018
Decision in case 229/2018/JAP on the European Commission’s failure to keep the complainant informed about the handling of his infringement complaint against Luxembourg
Quinta-Feira | 15 março 2018
Não comunicação pela Comissão Europeia ao queixoso de informação sobre o tratamento dado à queixa por infração que apresentou contra o Luxemburgo - CHAP(2014)03882 e EU Pilot 7478/15/EMPL
Quarta-Feira | 14 fevereiro 2018
The European Commission’s failure to keep the complainant informed about the processing of his infringement complaint against Luxembourg - CHAP(2014)03882 and EU Pilot 7478/15/EMPL
Quarta-Feira | 14 fevereiro 2018
Alegada falta de resposta da delegação da UE no Mali a correspondência relativa à rescisão de um contrato relacionado com a missão de um perito no Mali
Quinta-Feira | 04 janeiro 2018
The EU Delegation to Mali’s alleged failure to reply to correspondence concerning the termination of a contract related to an experts’ mission to Mali
Quinta-Feira | 04 janeiro 2018
Decision in case 515/2016/JAP on the European Asylum Support Office’s probationary assessment of a temporary agent
Sexta-Feira | 28 abril 2017
The case concerned the assessment of the probationary period of a temporary agent at the European Asylum Support Office (‘EASO’). The complainant, who was dismissed at the end of her probationary period, argued that there were a number of procedural shortcomings in her assessment. Moreover, the EASO failed to reply to her complaints made under the EU Staff Regulations.
The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and requested the EASO to reply to the complaints. She found that the EASO had taken the necessary steps to ensure an impartial assessment of the complainant’s probationary period and had respected the complainant’s right to be heard before taking the final decision on her further employment. The Ombudsman thus closed the case.