The Commission failed to deal with the complainant’s request(s) for access to documents promptly and with due regard to the relevant deadlines.
Summary of decision on complaint 2403/2008/OV against the European Commission
On 27 September 2007, the complainant, a Dutch citizen residing in Germany who receives Dutch unemployment benefit, complained to the Commission about an alleged discriminatory practice against non-German citizens by the public broadcasting company for the south-west of Germany as regards exemption from TV and radio licence fees. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the Commission sent two holding replies to the complainant in December 2007 and July 2008. However, having received no substantive reply, the complainant again complained to the Ombudsman in July 2008. He alleged that the Commission failed properly to deal, as regards both proced
Go to Source
The complainant, a teacher seconded to work in a European School alleges that her right to parental leave is not recognised, thereby breaching Article 33(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
The European Commission should ensure that the Staff Regulations of Seconded Teachers of the European Schools are modified to reflect Article 33(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Until such time as those Regulations are modified, the Commission should ensure that they are interpreted and applied in accordance with the Charter.
Summary of the decision on complaint 297/2010/(ELB)GG against the European Commission
The complainant, a Brussels-based lawyer, asked the European Commission for access to its manual of procedure for handling competition cases under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the “Antitrust ManProc”). This request was based on Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
The Commission rejected the request. It argued that disclosure would be highly detrimental to its decision-making process and would also undermine the purpose of its inspections and investigations in the area concerned. The Commission submitted that the Antitrust
Go to Source
The Commission infringed the principles of legitimate expectations and consistency when it considered research costs which were exempted from the Belgian professional withholding tax as ineligible for ERDF funding, thereby treating these costs differently in comparison with how they are treated under the 6th and 7th Research Framework Programmes.
Summary of decision on complaint 2139/2010/AN against the European Commission
The complainants are two entities which comprise numerous NGOs active in the field of external aid. Their members are often called to pay local taxes in the countries where they implement field activities, including projects financed by EU grants. Unlike the rest of the EU external aid instruments, the new provisions for development cooperation and for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide strictly forbid the financing of such taxes with EU funds.
The complainants considered that this situation causes serious problems for grant beneficiaries, and complained that the Commission failed to explain what steps it has taken in
Go to Source
Parliament has failed appropriately to assist the complainant in dealing with the consequences of an accident involving her car and another car in Parliament’s car park, in particular with regard to completing the accident declaration form for the purposes of the insurance.
Parliament should assist the complainant in dealing with the consequences of the accident, in particular with regard to completing the accident declaration form.
EPSO failed to review the complainant’s practical tests and to provide her with a detailed explanation of the errors identified in these tests.
EPSO should provide the complainant with copies of the corrected practical tests and/or the evaluation sheet.
Selection Board’s timing for assessment of candidates’ qualifications on the basis of the supporting documents
The Selection Board’s reasoning for rejecting the complainant’s request for a review of its decision was flawed.
EPSO should intervene with the Selection Board as regards the latter’s assessment of the complainant’s professional experience in order for the complainant to be placed on the reserve list.
Summary of decision on complaint 1992/2010/RT (confidential) against the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
The complainant is a Romanian non-governmental organisation. It signed a grant agreement with the European Commission concerning the implementation of a project. Subsequently, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) took over the grant agreement with the complainant. The EACEA did not accept the complainant’s final report for the project and decided to launch a recovery order for prepayments it had already made. It asked for the reimbursement of all staff costs paid for the project.
The complainant alleged that the EACEA acted unfairly and claimed that it should susp
Go to Source
The European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, has helped settle a dispute between the European Commission and the NGO Migration Policy Group (MPG) concerning an EU project launched as part of the “European Migration Dialogue”. After an audit, the Commission issued a recovery order for more than EUR 130 000 because MPG had delivered too late supporting documents for staff costs. The Commission eventually accepted a friendly solution proposal from the Ombudsman and refunded EUR 70 000 to the NGO.
Mr Diamandouros commented: “I very much welcome the Commission’s positive reply to my friendly solution proposal. Friendly solutions are an excellent tool to achieve win-win outcomes for both complainants and
Go to Source
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) had no competence or legal basis to decide to disclose registrants’ names.
ECHA should not disclose on its website the complainant’s name as being one of the registrants.
Summary of the decision on complaint 1581/2010/(FS)GG against the European Commission
In 2009, the complainant, an association of ski instructors, complained to the European Commission about the conditions for the recognition of ski instructors in certain Member States, including France. In 2000, the Commission authorised France to require ski instructors from other Member States to undergo a test before being allowed to provide their services in France. The relevant decision comprised a clause obliging France to submit, at the latest by August 2002, a report on the recognition of ski instructors’ diplomas in the seasons 2000 and 2001. No such report was submitted, however.
In November 2009, the complainant asked
Go to Source
Summary of decision on complaint 1512/2010/KM (confidential) against the European Commission
The complainant is a German company which advises small and medium-sized enterprises on innovation and technology-related projects and was the coordinator of the ‘IRC Saxony’ project which ran from 2004 to 2008. The IRC network was a Specific Support Action under the Sixth EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP6) and aimed to improve the transfer of innovative technology from research centres to industry.
In late 2009, an audit of one of the members of the consortium, B, concluded that some claimed costs were ineligible and had to be recovered. B noted that it had claimed more eligible costs
Go to Source
1) By not extending the validity of the reserve list in Open Competition EPSO/AD/53/06 – Administrators (AD5) with Cypriot citizenship in the field of Economics, EPSO infringed the principle of equal treatment of candidates.
2) EPSO failed to carry out a thorough consultation with the EU institutions as regards their needs for Cypriot economists.
EPSO should review its decision not to extend the validity of the reserve list in Open Competition EPSO/AD/53/06 – Administrators (AD5) with Cypriot citizenship in the field of Economics.
The pre-selection procedure for Competition EPSO/AD/204/10 – AD6 unlawfully and unfairly reduced the Selection Board’s involvement in the assessment at a critical stage of the recruitment procedure, by introducing a method that essentially amounted to a self -assessment by the candidates.
EPSO should amend the procedure to ensure that the pre-selection of candidates is based on an objective evaluation by the Selection Board rather than on a self-assessment.
Summary of decision on complaint 1299/2010/MHZ (confidential) against the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)
The complainant, a candidate in an EPSO open competition, arrived at the test centre half an hour before the scheduled starting time for the tests. He was allowed to start the computer based tests (CBT) immediately upon his arrival, but was seated at a computer near the door of the examination room even though other places were available. He was disrupted by the gradual arrival of new candidates and their interaction with the staff at the test centre. As a consequence, his results were insufficient to continue to the next stage of the competition.
He complained to the Ombudsman that EPSO failed to
Go to Source
First of all, I would like to thank Mr Falkenberg for inviting me to speak to you today.
I am going to talk about the role that the European Network of Ombudsmen could play in improving the implementation of environmental legislation.
I shall first make clear what the European Network of Ombudsmen is and what it does.
Then I shall explain how the Network fits into the institutional framework of EU environmental law.
Finally, I shall say what I think needs to be done in order to help members of the Network to be more active in the environmental field.
The European Network of Ombudsmen brings together the national and regi
Go to Source
Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1]
1. The European Commission’s Early Warning System (‘EWS’) is a computerised information system operated by the European Commission which seeks to identify “threats” to the EU’s financial interests and reputation[2]. For example, the EWS allows Commission staff involved in tender procedures to check whether any tenderers are suspected of fraud. The original rules on the EWS[3] were repealed immediately after the commencement of the present inquiry by the Commissi
Go to Source
The European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, has called on the European Commission to ensure that the computerised “Early Warning System” (EWS), an internal mechanism, which identifies persons deemed to pose a threat to the financial interests of the European Union, respects fundamental rights, such as the right to be heard. This follows an inquiry and a public consultation by the Ombudsman on the EWS.
Mr Diamandouros commented: “The EWS is clearly an important tool in helping to protect EU funds. However, the Commission must introduce adequate checks and balances so as to ensure that the EWS complies with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which is now legally binding on all EU institu
Go to Source
On the basis of an incorrect audit report, the Commission wrongly issued a debit note for the reimbursement of EUR 115 175, which was paid to the complainant for its participation in an EU-funded project.
The Commission should amend its debit note by reducing it to the undisputed amount (namely, EUR 6 014.96).
The Commission failed properly to deal with the complainant’s infringement complaint.
The Commission should take appropriate steps to ensure that the Federal Republic of Germany respects the right to cross internal EU borders.
Summary of decision on complaint 2755/2009/JF against the European Commission
The complainant is a scientist who applied for a vacancy within a unit at the Joint Research Centre (JRC). If selected, he would join his wife who already worked in the unit in question. The JRC however considered that staff having direct personal relationships should not work together and decided to transfer the complainant’s application to another unit in which there was also a vacant post. After he was informed that he had not been selected for that second vacancy, the complainant complained to the Ombudsman alleging that the JRC had acted unfairly.
In its opinion on the complaint, the JRC took the view that candidates for vacant pos
Go to Source
Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1]
1. The complainant is an attorney representing Mr D., a British citizen who, in January 2004, took up residence in Austria.
2. Considering that he constituted a threat to public security, in May 2005, the competent Austrian authorities took Mr D. into custody pending deportation and issued a decision excluding him from Austrian territory for life (the ‘expulsion decision’).
3. According to the complainant, the expulsion decision was solely based on the fact that Mr D., in 2000, was convicted and sentenced t
Go to Source
1. In 2000, the complainant submitted an infringement complaint to the European Commission. The complaint concerned the infringement by Spain of Council Directives 91/271/EEC[1] and 91/676/EEC[2] (the “directives”). The complaint was registered under reference 2000/4044.
2. On 19 November 2002, the Commission brought an action against Spain before the Court of Justice of the European Union[3]. On 8 September 2005, the Court declared that Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations under Directives 91/271 and 91/676, by not ensuring that waste wate
Go to Source
1. The complaint, which is directed against the European Commission, concerns the right of the complainant, who started working for an EU agency in June 2007, to receive a double dependent child allowance for his severely disabled child. After having formally applied for a double dependent child allowance on 25 March 2009, providing the required supporting documents (a medical certificate confirming that the child is 100% handicapped and that the child has suffered from the condition since birth), the European Commission’s Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (the ‘PMO’)[1] decided, on 22 April 2009, to grant the co
Go to Source
1. The complaint concerns the European Parliament’s rejection of an offer submitted under a framework service contract. The complainant, a German non-profit organisation, signed a framework contract[1] with Parliament. In June 2011, the complainant received an invitation from Parliament to submit an offer to carry out a particular study. The invitation was sent by e-mail only. The e-mail contained two attachments: the specifications for the study and the terms of reference. The specifications stated, in point 8.1 a), that the deadline for providing an outline of the study was 20 July 2011. There was no reference to a specific time before which
Go to Source
1. The present complaint concerns the Commission’s alleged refusal to appoint the complainant as a Head of Unit and to grant him the corresponding “management allowance”[1].
2. The complainant started his career at the Commission in 1989 (as an A5 official). In July 1992, he was appointed Head of Unit in Directorate-General (DG) Financial Control. On 1 April 2003, the complainant, who was at the time at grade A 3, was transferred, in the interest of the service, to DG External Relations (RELEX), Directorate K (“External Service”), as “Adviser ad personam“. With this transfer, the complainant ceased to be a Hea
Go to Source
1. The present complaint concerns the way the European Commission dealt with an infringement complaint by a British citizen about alleged racial discrimination by the Portuguese authorities.
2. In 2009 and early 2010[1], the complainant, a British citizen, lodged an infringement complaint with the European Commission concerning racial discrimination (against his wife, who is Asian) by the Portuguese authorities. More particularly, the complainant alleged an infringement of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin<a
Go to Source
1. The complaint concerns the European Personnel Selection Office’s (‘EPSO’) handling of requests made by the complainant in relation to open competition EPSO/AST/62/08. The complainant participated in the competition in question. He was invited to the written and oral tests. He was eventually informed, in July 2009, that although his marks in each of the tests were higher than or equal to the pass mark, his combined results were not sufficiently high to allow his name to be put on the reserve list of successful candidates.
2. The complainant made a number of requests to EPSO, including a request that EPSO inform him about the number of candidates invited
Go to Source
Summary of decision on complaint 2387/2009/(TS)ELB against the European Commission
The complaint concerns alleged unfair treatment by the Commission when dealing with a tender.
A consortium led by the complainant took part in a call for tenders launched by the Commission in the area of external relations. The call was divided into 12 lots. The consortium submitted a bid for one of these lots. Its bid was not selected because the score it obtained was too low.
The complainant alleged that its consortium was treated unfairly because, during the tender process, the Commission sent clarifications to tenderers for other lots before sending them to the tenderers for the lot in which the complainant’s consortium
Go to Source
1. The complaint concerns a refusal to grant public access to a document. In February 2009, the complainant, the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU, applied to the European Commission for public access under Regulation 1049/2001[1] to the final (or provisional) report on the Study on an impact assessment of a proposal for a Council Regulation that implements Article 10 of the UN Firearms Protocol into Community legislation (‘the Report’)[2]. The Report had been drafted for the Commission by a consortium of consultants in 2008.
2. On 16 March 2
Go to Source
The European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, has welcomed the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) release of adverse reaction reports related to Septrin, a medicine for the treatment of bacterial infections. This follows a complaint from a law firm, whose request for access to these reports had been refused. EMA eventually followed the Ombudsman’s recommendation to release the adverse reaction reports.
The Ombudsman stated: “I commend the important progress that EMA has recently made in improving the transparency of its work. Such improvements ensure that citizens will have greater trust in EMA, thus increasing both its legitimacy and its effectiveness in carrying out its important work in the field of public
Go to Source
1. The European Medicines Agency (‘the Agency’) is responsible for the protection and promotion of public and animal health through the scientific evaluation and supervision of medicines for human and veterinary use. The Agency’s tasks include the collection, management and dissemination of information on adverse reactions to medicines (pharmacovigilance)[1]. In order to carry out its pharmacovigilance tasks, the Agency receives information concerning suspected adverse reactions to medicines from the holders of marketing authorisations[2] and the competent authorities of the Member States. The information r
Go to Source
Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1]
1. The complainant is a former official of the European Commission. On 2 February 2009, when he was still working at the Commission, he sent a letter entitled “@europa.de” for publication on a discussion forum on Intracomm, the Commission’s intranet. The letter concerned a Sunday Times article, according to which a high-ranking Commission official had met journalists posing as representatives of a Chinese business and provided them with information on ongoing anti-dumping proceedings.[2] The letter, which included comme
Go to Source
Summary of decision on complaint 1220/2010/(VL)BEH (confidential) against the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)
The complainant, a German citizen, wished to apply for Open Competition EPSO/AD/177/10 for Administrators. On the online application form, applicants were, among other things, required to outline, in four sub-sections, their reasons for applying. The instructions on the application form explained that applicants could use up to 4 000 characters when answering each of the aforementioned sub-sections. When the complainant tried to submit his application, this proved to be impossible. More specifically, it was not possible to upload his answers in the relevant sub-sections, each of which comprised about 3
Go to Source