Želite vložiti pritožbo zoper institucijo ali organ EU?

Iskanje po preiskavah

Primer
Datumski razpon
Ključne besede
Iskanje s starimi ključnimi besedami (pred 2016)

Prikaz rezultatov 1–20 od 283

Decision on the use of languages by the European Medicines Agency on its website (case 1096/2021/PL)

Sreda | 22 junij 2022

The complainant was concerned that most of the information on the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) website is available in the English language only.

In the context of the inquiry, the Ombudsman reminded EMA of her recommendations on the use of official EU languages for the EU administration when communicating with the public.

EMA informed the Ombudsman that it is working on a language policy and a multilingual interface for its website.

The Ombudsman welcomed EMA’s plans to address the matter and closed the inquiry suggesting it follows up on its commitment in good time. The Ombudsman also suggested that, in the meantime, EMA seeks to make core information in all official EU languages more prominent on its website.

Decision on how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the professional experience of a candidate in a selection procedure for EU staff in the field of international cooperation (case 270/2021/KT)

Ponedeljek | 20 junij 2022

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of international cooperation.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications and, therefore, closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision on how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the professional experience of a candidate in a selection procedure for EU staff in the field of audit (case 768/2021/ABZ)

Torek | 21 december 2021

The case concerned how EPSO assessed the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of audit.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board had examined the replies provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the selection criteria. The Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s application, and therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Odločba o odzivu Evropske investicijske banke na pomisleke glede tega, da od kandidatov za zaposlitev zahteva nekatere osebne podatke pred sprejetjem odločitev o zaposlitvi (zadeva OI/5/2021/PB)

Sreda | 01 december 2021

Zadeva se nanaša na prakso Evropske investicijske banke (EIB), da kandidate za zaposlitev zaprosi, naj zagotovijo nekatere osebne podatke, zlasti v zvezi z njihovim družinskim položajem, preden EIB sprejme odločitev o zaposlitvi.

Varuhinja človekovih pravic je priznala, da je EIB vzpostavila to prakso zato, da bi bili njeni postopki kar najbolj učinkoviti. Vendar pa je izrazila zaskrbljenost, da je zbiranje osebnih podatkov nesorazmerno in lahko negativno vpliva na zaupanje v postopke zaposlovanja v EIB. Vsi kandidati namreč ne bi nujno dobili zagotovila, da osebni podatki v nobenem primeru ne bi imeli pomembne vloge pri njihovih možnostih, da dobijo zaposlitev.

EIB je odgovorila, da je spremenila svoje prakse tako, da so upoštevani pomisleki varuhinje človekovih pravic.

Varuhinja človekovih pravic je pozdravila konstruktiven odziv EIB in zaključila preiskavo.

Decision on how the European Parliament dealt with traineeship applications from a person requesting special arrangements due to dyslexia (case 179/2021/VB)

Ponedeljek | 08 november 2021

The case was about how the European Parliament dealt with two traineeship applications from a person who requested special arrangements for his applications due to dyslexia.

After first having rejected the complainant’s application, Parliament decided to interview him and offered him a traineeship. As the complainant had a long absence from his traineeship for medical reasons, Parliament offered him the possibility to apply again. However, Parliament rejected the complainant’s new application.

The complainant took issue with how Parliament handled his traineeship applications and with how it informed him that he could reapply for a traineeship.

The Ombudsman finds that Parliament should have been clearer in its communication with the complainant regarding the possibility to apply for a second traineeship. However, she finds no maladministration in how Parliament dealt with the complainant’s traineeship applications. Similarly, the fact that Parliament deals with requests for special arrangements made by traineeship candidates on a case-by-case basis is a reasonable approach.

The Ombudsman makes a suggestion for improvement to Parliament regarding how it informs traineeship candidates of the possibility to request special assistance in the context of the application and selection procedure and of how they should make such a request.