Iskanje po preiskavah
Prikaz rezultatov 1–20 od 24
Decision on how the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) notified a party in an ‘opposition proceeding’ (case 2241/2021/LDS)
Ponedeljek | 27 februar 2023
The complainant filed an ‘opposition proceeding’ against an application for an EU trademark before the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Opposition proceedings enable holders of existing EU trademarks to challenge applications for new EU trademarks in order to protect their rights. At the beginning of the opposition proceeding, and in previous proceedings filed by the complainant, the EUIPO communicated with the complainant by post. During the course of the opposition proceeding, the EUIPO changed its communication policy and decided to move to electronic communications. Because of this, the complainant missed a request for evidence.
The Ombudsman found that the EUIPO’s failure to inform the complainant properly about its decision to communicate electronically constitutes maladministration, because it was inconsistent with the EUIPO’s past practices. Since the opposition proceeding had been closed, the Ombudsman closed the case without making a recommendation.
However, she suggested that the EUIPO informs users about changes in its communication policy through the same channel it used to communicate with them in the past.
Decision on how the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) dealt with a Horizon 2020 funding proposal for the Enhanced European Innovation Council Accelerator Pilot (case 2097/2021/FA)
Petek | 15 julij 2022
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.
Kako je Izvajalska agencija Evropskega sveta za inovacije ter za mala in srednja podjetja (EISMEA) obravnavala predlog za financiranje v okviru programa Obzorje 2020 za pilotni projekt Pospeševalec Evropskega sveta za inovacije
Sreda | 09 februar 2022
Evropska komisija pritožnika ni obvestila o ukrepih, sprejetih v zvezi z njegovo pritožbo zaradi kršitve – (CHAP(2020)01279)
Sreda | 28 julij 2021
Decision in case 163/2020/NH on the failure by the European External Action Service (EEAS) to reply to correspondence concerning alleged irregularities in a disciplinary investigation in an EU civilian mission
Petek | 04 junij 2021
The case concerned the failure by the European External Action Service (EEAS) to reply to a letter concerning a disciplinary investigation that had taken place in 2017 in an EU civilian mission.
The Ombudsman found that the EEAS had repeatedly failed to reply to the complainant’s letters. Even if the EEAS considered that it could not reply on the substance, due to ongoing legal proceedings, it should have replied and explained this to the complainant. The failure to do so was maladministration.
Since, in the context of the inquiry, the EEAS explained why it believes it cannot give a substantive reply to the complainant, the Ombudsman did not make a recommendation to this end. She trusts, however, that the EEAS will take this finding on board going forward.
Decision in case 1498/2019/NH on the European Parliament not sending its reply to an access to documents request by e-mail
Četrtek | 28 maj 2020
The case concerned the refusal by the European Parliament to send a decision refusing public access to documents by e-mail.
The Ombudsman found that Parliament’s reply to the complainant was reasonable in the given context, as the complainant had already received the decision by registered post.
The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there had been no maladministration by Parliament in this case.
Evropska komisija domnevno ni odgovorila na korespondenco v zvezi s položajem mladoletnikov, nastanjenih v centru za vrnitev na Danskem
Sreda | 13 november 2019
Odgovor Evropskega parlamenta na prošnjo za dostop do dokumentov po pošti in ne po elektronski pošti
Ponedeljek | 14 oktober 2019
Komisija domnevno ni odgovorila na korespondenco v zvezi s pritožbo zoper francoske organe zaradi kršitve v zvezi z izvajanjem regionalnega programa Nord-Pas de Calais 2014–2020 – CHAP (2018) 02238
Torek | 24 september 2019
Decision in case 729/2019/MMO on how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint concerning an alleged violation of the Habitats Directive in the Republic of Cyprus
Četrtek | 18 julij 2019
Decision in case 484/2019/MMO on how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint concerning an alleged violation of the Habitats Directive in the Republic of Cyprus
Sreda | 17 julij 2019
Decision of the European Ombudsman in the above case on the European Commission’s alleged failure to certify to national authorities the employment periods of a former EURATOM staff member for pension purposes
Ponedeljek | 15 julij 2019
Decision in case 1178/2018/STI on the European Commission´s failure to keep the complainant informed about the state of play in an infringement procedure (CHAP(2016)01831) against Spain
Četrtek | 16 avgust 2018
Pritožba proti Evropski komisiji, ki pritožnika domnevno ni obveščala o stanju njegove pritožbe zaradi kršitve (CHAP(2016)01831) proti Španiji
Petek | 13 julij 2018
Decision in case 642/2018/TM on the European Commission’s refusal to reimburse certain medical expenses to a staff member
Sreda | 23 maj 2018
The case concerned how the European Commission dealt with a claim for the reimbursement of medical expenses from a staff member. The Commission refused to reimburse certain expenses claimed under its health insurance scheme by the staff member, even after he made an official administrative complaint, as provided for under the EU’s Staff Regulations.
The Ombudsman’s inquiry into the matter did not reveal any maladministration by the Commission.
Décision dans l’affaire 2132/2017/STI portant sur l’absence de réponse de la Délégation de l’Union européenne en République du Mali à une correspondance concernant la cessation d'un contrat lié à une mission d'experts au Mali
Petek | 18 maj 2018
Decision in case 229/2018/JAP on the European Commission’s failure to keep the complainant informed about the handling of his infringement complaint against Luxembourg
Četrtek | 15 marec 2018
The European Commission’s failure to keep the complainant informed about the processing of his infringement complaint against Luxembourg - CHAP(2014)03882 and EU Pilot 7478/15/EMPL
Sreda | 14 februar 2018
Komisija pritožnika ni obveščala o obdelavi njegove pritožbe zaradi kršitve zoper državo Luksembourg – CHAP(2014)03882 in projekt EU pilot 7478/15/EMPL
Sreda | 14 februar 2018
The EU Delegation to Mali’s alleged failure to reply to correspondence concerning the termination of a contract related to an experts’ mission to Mali
Četrtek | 04 januar 2018