Vyhľadať vyšetrovania

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.

Sťažovatelia, skupina organizácií občianskej spoločnosti, boli znepokojení spôsobom, akým Komisia viedla verejnú konzultáciu o iniciatíve s názvom Udržateľná správa a riadenie spoločností, ktorej cieľom je povzbudiť spoločnosti, aby lepšie riadili otázky udržateľnosti vo svojej činnosti. Sťažovatelia najmä tvrdili, že Komisia vo vecnej súhrnnej správe uverejnenej krátko po ukončení verejnej konzultácie riadne neprezentovala názory občanov, ktorí predložili odpovede prostredníctvom online platforiem pre kampane.

Ombudsmanka vyjadrila poľutovanie nad tým, že Komisia neprijala prístup, ktorý by bol ústretovejší voči občanom, pokiaľ ide o spôsob, akým v správe informovala o konzultácii, najmä poskytnutím väčšieho množstva informácií o odpovediach získaných od tých, ktorí sa zúčastnili na kampaniach. Skutočnosť, že Komisia vo vecnej súhrnnej správe vôbec neuvádza obsah reakcií predložených v rámci kampaní, môže organizácie odradiť od začatia kampaní v budúcnosti. To by malo negatívny vplyv na schopnosť zhromažďovať názory verejnosti v rámci verejných konzultácií a na zapojenie občanov do rozhodovacieho procesu.

Keďže Komisia medzitým prijala výsledný návrh smernice o náležitej starostlivosti podnikov v oblasti udržateľnosti, ďalšie skúmanie tejto otázky nie je opodstatnené. Ombudsmanka však predložila Komisii návrh na zlepšenie s cieľom zabezpečiť, aby Komisia v budúcnosti vo svojich správach o výsledkoch verejných konzultácií lepšie informovala o reakciách občanov získaných prostredníctvom platforiem pre kampane. Navrhla tiež, aby Komisia poskytla organizáciám jasné informácie o tom, ako možno v rámci konzultácií čo najlepšie zohľadniť odpovede, ktoré sa získajú prostredníctvom kampaní.

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.