Căutare anchete

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.

Reclamanții, un grup de organizații ale societății civile, erau îngrijorați de modul în care Comisia Europeană a efectuat o consultare publică referitoare la inițiativa privind guvernanța corporativă sustenabilă, care are scopul de a încuraja companiile să gestioneze mai bine aspectele de sustenabilitate în activitățile lor. Reclamanții au susținut în special că, în raportul faptic de sinteză publicat la scurt timp după încheierea consultării publice, Comisia nu a prezentat în mod corespunzător punctele de vedere ale cetățenilor care au transmis răspunsuri prin intermediul platformelor online ale campaniilor.

Ombudsmanul a considerat regretabil faptul că Comisia nu a adoptat o abordare mai apropiată de cetățeni cu privire la modul în care a raportat consultarea în raport, în special prin furnizarea mai multor informații cu privire la răspunsurile primite de la cei care au participat la campanii. Abordarea Comisiei de a nu raporta nicio informație cu privire la conținutul răspunsurilor din campanii în raportul faptic de sinteză riscă să descurajeze organizațiile să lanseze campanii în viitor. Acest lucru ar fi în detrimentul capacității consultărilor publice de a colecta puncte de vedere din partea publicului și de a implica cetățenii în procesul de decizie.

Întrucât, între timp, Comisia a adoptat Propunerea de directivă privind diligența necesară în materie de durabilitate a întreprinderilor, nu se justifică nicio anchetă suplimentară cu privire la această chestiune. Cu toate acestea, Ombudsmanul a făcut Comisiei o sugestie de îmbunătățire pentru a se asigura că, în viitor, rapoartele sale privind rezultatele consultărilor publice vor conține informații mai bune cu privire la răspunsurile primite de la cetățeni prin intermediul platformelor campaniilor. De asemenea, Ombudsmanul a sugerat Comisiei să ofere organizațiilor informații clare cu privire la modul în care răspunsurile pe care le obțin prin intermediul campaniilor pot fi cel mai bine luate în considerare în contextul consultărilor.

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.