Showing 1 - 10 of 254 results
Decision in case 169/2017/AMF on equal treatment, equal opportunities and transparency in a recruitment procedure organised by the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy
Tuesday | 04 September 2018
The case concerned a staff selection procedure organised by the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (“Fusion for Energy”). The complainant was concerned about the same test being taken by applicants on different dates and that Fusion for Energy was not sufficiently transparent regarding how the different tests would be assessed.
The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found no maladministration by Fusion for Energy in how it had organised the staff selection procedure. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry.
Decision in case 1978/2017/MDC on the European Commission’s refusal to recognise the complainant’s accident
Tuesday | 17 July 2018
The complaint to the European Commission 1. The complainant is an EU civil servant. On 12 December 2016, the European Commission decided not to recognise an alleged accident of ovariectomy (surgical removal of the complainant’s right ovary) which, according to the complainant, had taken place on 23 April 2013. The complainant filed a complaint in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulati...
Decision in case 1676/2017/THH on the European Commission’s handling of requests for access to documents on how it deals with and tries to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of its documents
Tuesday | 03 July 2018
The complainant had made two requests for public access to documents relating to how the European Commission deals with and tries to prevent leaks (unauthorised disclosure of documents). The Commission limited the scope of the first request and refused access. For the second request, it granted partial access. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman as the Commission had failed to grant him public access to the documents and failed to comply with the relevant time limits.
The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission had been wrong to narrow down the scope of the complainant’s first request without consulting the complainant beforehand. The Ombudsman was not convinced by the Commission’s reasons for not giving full access to the documents and its restrictive interpretation of the scope of the second request. Therefore, the Ombudsman recommended that the Commission should reassess the access requests promptly. The Commission refused to follow the Ombudsman’s recommendation.
The Ombudsman regrets that the Commission did not follow her recommendation. She confirms that the Commission’s continued refusal to reassess the complainant’s access requests constitutes maladministration.
Friday | 15 June 2018
The complainant participated in a staff selection procedure for drivers organised by the European Parliament but he was not recruited. He turned to the Ombudsman, complaining that his language knowledge was incorrectly assessed because he was interviewed only in French and had not been asked any question in Italian, his first language. He also complained about not having been provided with all his test results. The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found no indication of his level of French being incorrectly assessed. Although it was not entirely clear how the complainant’s level of Italian had been assessed, the complainant’s knowledge of French was not at a sufficient level and thus he could not be recruited. The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration by Parliament in this regard.
During the course of the inquiry, Parliament agreed to disclose the complainant’s test result and thus settled this aspect of the complaint.
Decision in case 1647/2016/EIS concerning the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) rejection of the complainant’s request to retake computer-based tests because a fire alarm went off while she was taking them
Wednesday | 13 June 2018
The case concerned the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to reject the complainant’s request to retake the computer-based tests on the ground that a fire alarm went off during the tests and candidates had to be evacuated from the building for a period. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that, while the action of EPSO in this case does not warrant a finding of maladministration, it should have reacted more flexibly and positively in the particular circumstances.
The Ombudsman suggested that, for the future, EPSO should draw up internal guidelines for dealing with incidents occurring during tests, so as to ensure that its responses will be appropriate, fair and equitable for all candidates.
Decision in case 602/2017/AMF on the European Personnel Selection Office’s exclusion of a candidate from a selection procedure for EU civil servants because the application had not been submitted in the correct language
Thursday | 07 June 2018
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) excluded the complainant from a selection procedure for the recruitment of EU civil servants because he had not filled out his application in the correct language.
The complainant turned to the Ombudsman, who inquired into the issue. The rules for the recruitment procedure required applicants to fill out the application form in their chosen ‘second language’, which for the complainant was French. The complainant argued that he had merely used some English IT terminology. However, the Ombudsman found that he had described some of his professional experience entirely in English, by writing full sentences and not only using IT terminology. EPSO was thus right to exclude him from the selection procedure and the Ombudsman found no maladministration.
Decision in case 663/2017/TE on how the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) dealt with a request for access to documents from its investigation concerning the then European Parliament President
Wednesday | 06 June 2018
The case concerned a request for access to documents held by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The documents in question related to an investigation into the terms of employment of an assistant to the then President of the European Parliament. After initially extending the time limit for responding to the complainant, OLAF refused to disclose the documents. To justify its decision, OLAF referred to EU case law that had established a ‘general presumption’ that OLAF investigations (and their documents) should be confidential.
The Ombudsman found that the documents in question were covered by the presumption of confidentiality at the time OLAF made its decision to refuse access. The Ombudsman suggested, however, that OLAF should give clearer explanations when it extends the time limit for replying to access to documents requests.
Decision in case 642/2017/LM on the adjustment of the net pension of a retired driver at the European Investment Bank
Tuesday | 05 June 2018
The case concerned the amount of pension paid to a former driver at the European Investment Bank (EIB). The complainant contended that his net pension did not substantially increase in the years 2015 and 2016, despite the EIB annually adjusting gross pensions in line with the increase in the cost of living.
The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and the EIB provided detailed explanations why there was no substantial increase in the complainant’s pension.
On the basis of those detailed explanations, the Ombudsman found no maladministration by the EIB in determining the amount of pension paid to the complainant.
Decision in case 1279/2017/KT on an EU Agency withdrawing an offer to extend a staff member’s work contract
Thursday | 31 May 2018
The complaint to the EU Agency 1. The complainant started working for an EU Agency (“Agency”) in June 2014. The contract was for three years, ending in May 2017. The post required shift work. 2. In December 2016, the Agency offered the complainant a three-year extension of his contract. In January 2017, before the complainant signed the contract extension, he informed his superior that working ...
Decision in case 429/2017/AMF on the European Commission´s alleged failure to protect an EU staff member as a whistleblower
Tuesday | 29 May 2018
The complaint in this case was made by a Member of the European Parliament and concerns an EU staff member who alleged that she was harassed in the context of her work within the European Commission. The complainant stated that the staff member was a whistleblower and that the Commission had failed to protect her. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission had treated the ...