Sök efter undersökningar

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to recover sums paid out as grants under various EU-funded projects. The decision was taken following audits carried out by an auditor on behalf of the Commission. The complainant disagreed with the audit findings. Amongst other things, the complainant wanted the audits to be reviewed by the national chamber of auditors in its Member State. The Commission did not consider this necessary.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that there was no maladministration by the Commission.

This case arose from the failure of the European Commission Representation in Croatia to reply to an information request made on Facebook and the fact that it blocked the complainant on its Facebook page. The complainant had asked if the Head of Representation in Croatia was a former member of the communist party of Yugoslavia.

Since the Commission has now unblocked its Facebook page and replied, the Ombudsman finds that the Commission has settled these aspects of the case. The Ombudsman further finds that the Commission committed no maladministration by not disclosing the requested information because it constituted protected personal data.

However, the Ombudsman makes a suggestion for improvement about the need for replies to citizens communicating with the Commission on social media. The Commission should take into account the fact that the right to a reply, guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principles of good administration, as provided for in the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, applies to communications received via social media, subject only to  limitations justified under the principle of proportionality. The Commission should take this into account in revising its Information Providers Guide and in any other relevant work.

The case concerned a selection procedure for a post at the EU Delegation to Albania. The complainant was unhappy at not having been shortlisted for the post, as she believed that she fulfilled all the required criteria. She requested information on her application and the reasons why she was not the shortlisted. The Delegation failed to reply to her request in a timely manner.

The Ombudsman inquired into the matter. In the course of the inquiry, the Delegation replied to the complaint, thereby resolving this aspect of the complaint. As regards the decision not to shortlist the complainant, the Ombudsman found the Delegation’s explanation of its decision to be reasonable and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. The Ombudsman suggested that the European External Action Service should give guidance to Delegations on the need to keep candidates informed where selection competitions have been delayed. The Ombudsman also suggested that the European External Action Service should include, in the ‘EU Delegations’ Guide for Local Agents’, more detailed requirements regarding the type of information to be included in the list/excel spreadsheet drawn up by selection committees.

The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s correspondence in the context of a financial audit at the Member State level. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the Commission replied. It disclosed the document requested by the complainant but redacted some personal data (names of physical persons). The Ombudsman found that the Commission correctly justified the redaction under Regulation 45/2001.

The case concerned the handling of a request for information as how to obtain a downloadable version of a case law database held by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’). The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and asked EUIPO to better explain its reasons why it could not comply with the request. The EUIPO’s explanation was accurate and reasonable. Thus, the case was closed with the finding of no maladministration.

En tidigare praktikant vid Europeiska unionens råd ingav ett klagomål om att det bidrag som EU:s institutioner utbetalar åt sina praktikanter inte är rimligt då det är lägre än minimilönen och därför inte garanterar praktikanterna skälig levnadsstandard.

Ombudsmannen inledde en undersökning av ärendet. Hon fann att rådet tillräckligt utförligt förklarat hur beloppet för praktikantbidraget fastställs. Ombudsmannen fann att beslutet att betala ut ett bidrag motsvarande 25 procent av lönen för en tjänsteman i lönegrad AD5.1 var välgrundat. Rådet hade fattat detta beslut inom sitt handlingsutrymme i enlighet med sina administrativa behov och den tillgängliga budgeten.

Ombudsmannen noterade att rådet skiljer mellan praktik och anställning. En praktikant får därför bidrag och inte lön eftersom praktikantens rättigheter och skyldigheter inte kan jämföras med dem som gäller för en anställd. Ombudsmannen ansåg att rådets förklaring var rimlig.

Hon avslutade därför ärendet med att konstatera att rådets praxis inte utgjorde något administrativt missförhållande.

The case concerned the European Central Bank’s (ECB) failure to reply adequately to the complainant's request for information concerning the ECB's competence to ensure the enforcement of financial regulation and consumer protection legislation in Member-States. The Ombudsman asked the ECB to provide the complainant with a detailed answer concerning its supervisory role vis a vis the national central banks, but also the role of the Single Supervisory Mechanism in supervising private entities. The ECB replied in a clear and comprehensive manner. The Ombudsman therefore decided to close the case.

Ombudsmannen har undersökt ärendet. Hon höll med kommissionen om att kommissionen inte ska blanda sig i den vetenskapliga tolkningen eller publiceringen av vetenskapliga studier som den finansierar. Ombudsmannen kom även fram till att enbart det faktum att det finns kopplingar mellan forskarna i projektet och branschen inte utgör något bevis på att det finns en intressekonflikt. Ombudsmannen påpekade att kommissionen ofta finansierar projekt som genomförs av antingen branschen eller grupper med nära kopplingar till branschen. Ombudsmannen föreslog emellertid att kommissionen borde överväga att ge den klagande en mer uttömmande och ingående förklaring till varför kommissionen inte anser att kopplingarna mellan branschen och forskarna inom Grace utgör någon intressekonflikt.

Ombudsmannen kom vidare fram till att kommissionen hade fullföljt alla lagbestämmelser om publicering av namn på de utvärderingsexperter som medverkade vid valet av projekt finansierade enligt sjunde ramprogrammet. I syfte att ytterligare öka insynen och underlätta allmänhetens kontrollmöjligheter föreslog ombudsmannen att kommissionen i framtiden borde publicera namnen på utvärderingsexperterna uppdelade på de ämnen och/eller områden som finns i sjunde ramprogrammet. Ombudsmannen föreslog också att även utvärderarnas intresseförklaringar borde publiceras.

The case concerned a complaint that the European Central Bank did not, as some central banks had done in the past, publish a scoreboard on compliance by Eurozone Member States with the so-called "convergence criteria". The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the ECB is not obliged to publish such an overview, given, in particular, that Member States are now called upon to comply with different criteria. She also found that the ECB and the European Commission publish relevant and accessible statistical information on market surveillance. There was therefore no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Parliament's alleged failure to provide the complainant with the assessment grid and with the specific reasons for the points awarded to him in a selection procedure.

Given that the Civil Service Tribunal has ruled, in a recent judgment, that selection boards do not need to give candidates the corrected version of their tests, the reasons why replies were erroneous, or the evaluation grids used for the written and oral tests, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint to allow Parliament to comment on the relevance of the Tribunal's findings on its recruitment proceedings.

Parliament argued that its reasons for refusing to provide the complainant with the requested information were supported by the Civil Service Tribunal's judgment. It nevertheless provided the complainant with the reasons why he was awarded a certain number of points for certain answers.

The Ombudsman found that Parliament acted reasonably and therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The complaint, which was submitted by the British Air Line Pilots' Association, relates to the EU rules on flight and duty time limitations and rest requirements for commercial airlines. More specifically, it concerns the manner in which EASA had conducted its process to update these rules. The complainant contended (i) that scientific advice should have had a more prominent role in the rulemaking process; (ii) that EASA had failed to provide evidence of the qualifications of the members of the rulemaking group; and (iii) that EASA did not deal adequately with conflict of interest issues.

The Ombudsman found no maladministration by EASA as regards the role of scientific advice in the rulemaking process. As regards the issue of how EASA manages possible conflicts of interest in the rulemaking groups, the Ombudsman found that its policy for mitigating such conflicts in the case of its own staff had been changed and that this revised approach is now being applied also to experts in the rulemaking groups. On this basis the Ombudsman concluded that she did not have to inquire further into that issue. Finally, EASA accepted the Ombudsman's recommendation to provide the complainant with anonymised information about the members of the rulemaking group. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case, encouraging EASA to adopt a more proactive approach to disclosing information available to it about the qualifications and expertise of members of the rulemaking group. She also flagged that she is considering looking into issues related to the work done by external experts for certain EU agencies.

Ärendet gällde kommissionens vägran att ge allmänheten tillgång till handlingar om den brittiska underrättelsetjänstens internetövervakning. Ombudsmannen rekommenderade kommissionen att bevilja tillgång till en specifik handling (en skrivelse från den brittiske utrikesministern till kommissionens dåvarande vice ordförande) och att kommissionen antingen skulle lämna ut de andra handlingarna eller på lämpligt sätt motivera varför den ansåg att handlingarna inte kunde lämnas ut.

Kommissionen beslutade att lämna ut den brittiske utrikesministerns skrivelse och följde därmed den första delen av ombudsmannens rekommendation. Kommissionen stod emellertid fast vid sitt beslut att inte lämna ut de andra handlingarna. Den motiverade sin ståndpunkt med att en undersökning om huruvida Storbritanniens massövervakningsprogram utgör en överträdelse av EU-lagstiftningen, i synnerhet när det gäller individens rätt till uppgiftsskydd, fortfarande pågick. Kommissionen hävdade att innan den undersökningen hade avslutats skulle utlämnandet av de berörda handlingarna ha en negativ inverkan på dialogen mellan de brittiska myndigheterna och kommissionen. Den hävdade även att dess förmåga att bedriva undersökningar på ett effektivt sätt och besluta om lämpliga svarsåtgärder rent generellt borde skyddas från risken för yttre påtryckningar. Slutligen ansåg kommissionen inte att det fanns ett övervägande allmänintresse i att handlingarna lämnades ut.

Ombudsmannen är inte övertygad om att kommissionen på ett adekvat sätt har motiverat sitt beslut att neka allmänheten tillgång till de återstående ej offentliggjorda handlingarna. Eftersom kommissionen vare sig har lämnat ut dessa handlingar eller på ett adekvat sätt har motiverat sitt beslut att neka allmänheten tillgång till dem är det uppenbart att kommissionen har avvisat ombudsmannens rekommendation om dessa handlingar. Vidare konstaterar ombudsmannen att kommissionen inte förefaller att ha vidtagit någon åtgärd när det gäller den aktuella undersökningen sedan 2013. Ombudsmannen finner därför att kommissionens agerande i detta ärende inte endast utgör ett fall av administrativt missförhållande, utan faktiskt ett allvarligt fall av administrativt missförhållande, med tanke på det aktuella ärendets särskilda betydelse för EU-medborgarna.