Iskanje po preiskavah

The case concerned the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to allow a candidate, who was placed in COVID-19 quarantine, to reschedule her test in the context of a selection procedure for contract agent staff (CAST Permanent selection procedure).

The Ombudsman found that EPSO provided reasonable explanations as to why it was not able to provide an alternative testing date to the complainant. On that basis, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding that there was no maladministration by EPSO.

 Pritožniki, tj. skupina organizacij civilne družbe, so bili zaskrbljeni, da Evropska komisija ni ocenila tveganj za kršitve človekovih pravic pred zagotovitvijo podpore afriškim državam za razvoj zmogljivosti za nadzor, zlasti v okviru nujnega skrbniškega sklada Evropske unije za Afriko. Trdili so, da bi morala Komisija pred odločitvijo za podporo projektom z morebitnimi posledicami glede nadzora, kot so biometrične podatkovne zbirke ali tehnologije za nadzor mobilnih telefonov, opraviti predhodno oceno tveganj in vplivov za zagotovitev, da projekti ne pripeljejo do kršitev človekovih pravic (kot je na primer pravica do zasebnosti).

Varuhinja je na podlagi preiskave zaključila, da uvedeni ukrepi niso zadoščali za zagotovitev ustrezne ocene, kako projekti nujnega skrbniškega sklada EU za Afriko vplivajo na človekove pravice. Za odpravo ugotovljenih pomanjkljivosti je varuhinja predlagala izboljšave, da se pri prihodnjih projektih nujnega skrbniškega sklada EU opravi predhodna ocena vpliva na človekove pravice.

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.