Iskanje po preiskavah

The complainant participated in a call for proposals under the Horizon 2020 programme, which was organised by the Research Executive Agency (REA). The REA did not select the complainant’s proposal for funding but the European Commission subsequently annulled the REA’s decision and instructed the REA to re-evaluate the proposal. The REA re-evaluated the complainant’s proposal but decided not to allocate funds to it. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman found that the REA re-evaluated the proposal in line with the applicable rules and that the re-evaluation was fair. She thus closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned how the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) dealt with a proposal for funding under the Enhanced European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator Pilot.

The complainant took issue with how EASME evaluated its proposal as well as with the lack of information received on the evaluation and possibilities for review. The complainant was also concerned with the delay by EASME in replying to his request that it review its decision.  

In the course of the inquiry, the European Innovation Council and SME Executive Agency (EISMEA), which succeeded and replaced EASME, explained why there was a delay in the review procedure. The Ombudsman considered that the explanation was reasonable. The Ombudsman also found that EASME had provided sufficient information to the complainant on the evaluation and possibilities for review. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman found that the feedback provided by EASME to the complainant was not sufficient, and did not allow a meaningful review of the evaluation of the proposal. The Ombudsman noted that, in the context of the new EIC Accelerator programme, EISMEA appears to provide more detailed feedback to applicants on the evaluation of their proposals.

The Ombudsman thus considered that no further inquiries were justified in this case and closed the inquiry.

Pritožnik, mreža novinarjev iz več evropskih držav, je zaprosil za dostop javnosti do začetnih pripomb in vprašanj držav članic o zakonodajnem predlogu akta o digitalnih trgih. Svet je zavrnil popoln dostop do opredeljenih dokumentov z utemeljitvijo, da bi popolno razkritje ogrozilo postopek odločanja, ki je v teku.

Varuhinja človekovih pravic je opozorila, da je obveščanje javnosti o napredku zakonodajnih postopkov pravna zahteva. Pravočasen dostop do zakonodajnih dokumentov je za državljane bistven za uveljavljanje njihove pravice do sodelovanja v demokratičnem življenju EU, kakor je opredeljena v Pogodbi.

V tej zadevi je evropska varuhinja človekovih pravic ugotovila, da Svet ni zadovoljivo dokazal, da bi razkritje zahtevanih dokumentov resno vplivalo, podaljšalo ali otežilo njegov postopek odločanja. Zato je menila, da je zavrnitev Sveta, da javnosti omogoči dostop, pomenila nepravilnost. Svetu je priporočila, naj javnosti omogoči popoln dostop do zahtevanih zakonodajnih dokumentov.

Svet je v odgovor javnosti omogočil popoln dostop do zahtevanih dokumentov. Varuhinja človekovih pravic pozdravlja pozitiven odgovor Sveta na njeno priporočilo. Vendar pa obžaluje čas, ki ga je Svet potreboval, da je javnosti omogočil dostop. Ugotavlja, da ker je od zahteve minilo že več kot leto, razkritih dokumentov ni mogoče več uporabiti za namen, za katerega jih je nameraval pritožnik, in sicer za obveščanje državljanov o zakonodajnem postopku v teku. Varuhinja človekovih pravic je zato potrdila svojo ugotovitev nepravilnosti.

Varuhinja človekovih pravic poziva Svet, naj zakonodajne dokumente da na voljo v času, ki bo javnosti omogočil učinkovito sodelovanje v razpravi.

A call for tenders for the procurement of architectural services, organised by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), included the requirement that one member of the team that would provide the service be an architect registered with a specific association in Ireland. The complainant, an Irish architectural firm, contended that such a requirement is discriminatory, as other categories of professionals, such as registered building surveyors or chartered engineers, could provide the services listed in the call for tenders.

The Ombudsman found that Eurofound had not clearly demonstrated why the requirement was justified. However, she closed the inquiry with the finding that no further inquiries were justified because Eurofound has not awarded any contract. She nonetheless made a suggestion for improvement for any future calls for tenders for the provision of architectural services that Eurofound may organise.