Sök efter undersökningar

The case concerned a selection procedure organised by the European Parliament to recruit ‘intercultural and language professionals’. The complainant considered that the score he received in the ‘talent evaluator’ stage of the procedure, which aimed to evaluate candidates’ qualifications and professional experience, did not represent an accurate assessment of his relevant professional experience and his studies in the field.

The Ombudsman found no manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s talent evaluator and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. She identified some elements for Parliament to consider in future procedures and drew Parliament’s attention to them.

Klagandena, en grupp organisationer i det civila samhället, var bekymrade över hur Europeiska kommissionen hade genomfört ett offentligt samråd om initiativet för hållbar företagsstyrning, vilket syftar till att uppmuntra företag till att bättre hantera hållbarhetsfrågor i sin verksamhet. Klagandena anförde särskilt att kommissionen, i den sammanfattande rapport som publicerades kort efter att det offentliga samrådet hade avslutats, inte på ett korrekt sätt redogjorde för de synpunkter som hade lämnats av medborgare genom kampanjplattformar på nätet.

Ombudsmannen beklagade att kommissionen inte antagit en mer medborgarvänlig inställning när den rapporterade om samrådet i rapporten, framför allt genom att presentera mer information om svaren från dem som hade deltagit i kampanjerna. Kommissionens beslut att inte rapportera alls om innehållet i kampanjsvaren i den sammanfattande rapporten riskerar att avskräcka organisationer från att lansera kampanjer i framtiden. Detta skulle vara skadligt för de offentliga samrådens förmåga att inhämta allmänhetens åsikter och för medborgarnas deltagande i beslutsprocesser.

Ytterligare undersökningar av denna fråga är dock inte motiverade, eftersom kommissionen sedan dess har antagit ett förslag till direktiv om tillbörlig aktsamhet för företag i fråga om hållbarhet. Ombudsmannen presenterade dock ett förslag till förbättringar för kommissionen, i syfte att se till att den lämnar bättre information om svar som den fått av medborgare via kampanjplattformar i sina rapporter om framtida resultat av offentliga samråd. Hon föreslog också att kommissionen lämnar tydlig information till organisationer om hur de svar som de samlar in genom kampanjer på bästa sätt kan beaktas i samband med samråd.

 

The complainant took part in two selection procedures for contract staff, organised by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) in 2018 and 2019. He was dissatisfied with how Frontex dealt with his administrative complaint about the evaluation of his application in the 2018 selection procedure, in which he was unsuccessful. He also complained that Frontex had failed to reply to his request for feedback regarding the 2019 selection procedure.

In the course of the inquiry, Frontex provided the complainant with feedback regarding the 2019 selection procedure. As regards the 2018 selection procedure, the Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how Frontex had assessed the complainant’s application. However, the Ombudsman considered that Frontex had not dealt with the complainant’s administrative complaint in an entirely satisfactory manner.

Given that the inquiry revealed no manifest error of assessment, the Ombudsman considered that no additional inquiries would be justified into that aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman suggested, however, that Frontex improve how it communicates to applicants the redress possibilities in the context of its staff selection procedures, as well as how it processes and keeps records of complaints by unsuccessful applicants.

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.

Ärendet rörde offentliga uttalanden som en generaladvokat vid Europeiska unionens domstol (EU-domstolen) gjort om ett utkast till EU:s rättsakt om digitala marknader medan lagstiftningsprocessen pågick. Klaganden, en konsumentskyddsorganisation, ansåg att EU-domstolen inte hanterat detta eventuella brott mot dess uppförandekod korrekt.

Ombudsmannen ställde en rad frågor till EU-domstolen. EU-domstolen hävdade att ombudsmannen saknade mandat att undersöka klagomålet eftersom det rörde domstolens rättsliga verksamhet.

Ombudsmannens hade en annan uppfattning om sitt mandat än domstolen. Eftersom det inte ansågs meningsfullt att göra ytterligare undersökningar avslutade dock ombudsmannen ärendet.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed a candidate in an interview in the context of a procedure for recruiting EU civil servants in the field of taxation. The complainant considered that his low score in the interview was due to the fact that the interview panel did not include any expert in taxation. He was dissatisfied with how EPSO addressed his concerns.

In the course of the inquiry, EPSO provided adequate clarifications about the expertise of the selection board. The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how EPSO had carried out the interview. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.