Sök efter undersökningar

The case concerned how the European Parliament assessed the complainant’s written test in a selection procedure for recruiting ‘intercultural and language professionals’.

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

The case concerned the decision of the European Investment Bank to approve a request made by a former vice-president and member of its Management Committee (MC) (the ‘former VP’) to become a non-executive board member of a Spanish energy utility company, which received loans from the EIB.

The complainants, two Members of the European Parliament, raised concerns that the move gave rise to the risk of conflicts of interest. The EIB argued that the former VP had not been involved in the negotiation and implementation of the financing agreements between the EIB and the company.

The Ombudsman found that, in approving the move, the EIB did not properly manage the risk of conflicts of interest to which the former VP’s request arguably gave rise. However, given the EIB has, in the meantime, made improvements to the relevant ethics rules to address these matters, the Ombudsman determined that no further inquiries were justified.

Nonetheless, the Ombudsman made suggestions for improvement with a view to strengthening how the EIB assesses ‘revolving door’ moves by members of its MC to the private sector, and how it ensures compliance where its Ethics and Compliance Committee authorises a move but applies conditions on the individual and their activities.

The case concerned the time taken by the European Parliament to deal with a staff member’s request to recognise her condition as an ‘occupational disease’.

The Ombudsman wrote to the Parliament reminding it that principles of good administration require EU institutions to take decisions within a reasonable time frame and that this is particularly important when the decision is related to the health of the person concerned.

Following updates from the Parliament and the complainant showing that the Parliament had taken a decision on the request in June 2022, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that the matter has been settled.

 

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit the complainant to a selection procedure for ‘experts in technical support to Member States’ structural reforms’, because she did not meet the eligibility requirements as regard the level of education and years of professional experience.

The Ombudsman found no manifest error in the selection board’s finding that the complainant did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the time taken by the European Commission to deal with an appeal concerning its decision to apply a ‘medical reserve’ on a newly recruited staff member.

The Ombudsman wrote to the Commission reminding it that principles of good administration require EU institutions to take decisions within a reasonable time frame and that this is particularly important when the decision is related to the health of the person concerned and to social security cover.

Following updates from the Commission and the complainant showing that the Commission took a final decision on the appeal in March 2022, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that the substantive matter has been settled. The Ombudsman expects the Commission in future to handle similar procedures in a timely manner.