The background to the complaint

1. The complainant, who is a German national, submitted a petition to the European Parliament in relation to the 2009 European Parliament elections. In the course of its investigation of this petition, the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament (the ‘Committee on Petitions’) asked the European Commission for an opinion.

2. On 5 January 2010, the complainant asked the Commission to grant him access to the questions which the Committee on Petitions had submitted to it and to the information which the Commission subsequently collected, for example, from Germany.

3. Article 7(1) of Regulation 1049/2001<a name="_ftnref1" hre
Go to Source

Summary of decision on complaint 1786/2010/PB against the European Commission

The complainant, the University of Copenhagen, objected to the fact that the European Commission required recipients of EU funding to ensure that the funds received generate interest for the benefit of the EU budget. To comply with this obligation, beneficiaries either had to set up bank accounts, or manage/operate existing accounts for that purpose. In the complainant’s view, the Commission thus imposed an unreasonably bureaucratic and disproportionate obligation.

The present case concerned the so-called ‘pre-financing’ paid by the Commission in the framework of the EU’s 7th Research Framework Programme. This kind of payment is paid up
Go to Source

Allegation(s)

1) The complainant alleges that the Commission failed to handle its infringement complaint with due diligence.

2) The complainant also alleged that the Commission failed to provide it with an appropriate statement of reasons for the closure of its case.

Claim(s)

The Commission should better explain why it decided to close the complainant’s infringement case.

Go to Source

Open dialogue between institutions and citizens – the way forward
Final event, following a series of workshops, organised by the Austrian Institute for European Law and Policy and CEPS
Brussels, 14 March 2012, 12.00 – 15.00
Keynote speech by P. N. Diamandouros, European Ombudsman

Introduction

Ladies and Gentlemen! I would like to start by congratulating the organisers of this series of workshops on “Open dialogue between the institutions and citizens” for their important initiative. Prof. Pichler and the Austrian Institute for European Law and Policy, in cooperation with the Centre for European Policy Studies, have been very successful in energising the debate on this new provision of the
Go to Source

The European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, has opened an inquiry into how Frontex implements its fundamental rights obligations. Frontex is an EU agency based in Warsaw. It coordinates the operational cooperation between Member States in the field of border security. An EU Regulation adopted last year provides for Frontex to put in place a fundamental rights strategy, codes of conduct for its operations, and a fundamental rights officer. Because of the importance of the issues concerned, which are of great interest to civil society, the Ombudsman has asked Frontex to reply to a number of questions about its understanding and implementation of these obligations.

Background

In 2009,
Go to Source

Implementation by Frontex of its fundamental rights obligations

Go to Source

Summary of decision on complaint 427/2011/MHZ against the European Commission

Regulation (EC) 2187/2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound requires the Commission to ensure, by 1 January 2008, that a scientific assessment of the effects of using, in particular, gillnets, trammel nets, and entangling nets on cetaceans is conducted and that its findings are presented to the European Parliament and Council.

The Commission asked a scientific institute to carry out such an assessment, but the latter was not able to do so due to the lack of relevant reports on incidental catches of cetaceans. These reports should have been submitted to the Com
Go to Source

Allegation(s)

The complainant alleges that the Test Office failed to inform her in a timely manner about the fact that she would not be eligible to sit the inter-institutional accreditation test, held in Brussels on 6 January 2012.

Claim(s)

The complainant claims that she should receive appropriate compensation in view of: (i) the time and effort she spent preparing for the relevant test; (ii) the employment opportunities foregone in that context; and (iii) the impact on the complainant’s private life.

Go to Source

Allegation(s)

The complainant alleges that the Commission erred:

1) by failing to give adequate reasons for rejecting its view that the lobbying budgets submitted by two companies[1] in relation to the Commission’s “Lobbyists” Register were underestimated;

2) by rejecting its request for full public access to documents related to the entries made by the two companies in the Commission’s “Lobbyists” Register;

3) by failing to respect the time limits laid down in Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to documents.

Claim(s)

The complainant claims that the Commission should:

1) properly handle complaints concerning interest representation;

Go to Source

Allegation(s)

Parliament fails to register all existing Parliament documents in its electronic Register of documents.

Claim(s)

Parliament should register all existing Parliament documents in its electronic Register of documents.

Go to Source

null
Go to Source

Allegation(s)

1) The Commission failed properly to handle the complainant’s infringement complaint.

2) The Commission unlawfully refused the complainant access to the requested documents.

Claim(s)

1) The Commission should address a reasoned opinion to France concerning the unlawful practice.

2) The Commission should adopt a temporary ban on trade in French wine spirits until France complies with its obligations under EU law.

3) The Commission should grant the complainant access to the requested documents.

Go to Source

Allegation(s)

1) The European Commission unlawfully and/or unfairly terminated Grant Contract ENPI/2009/203-997 and in particular failed to give reasons for its decision.

2) The Commission failed to manage the Project with due diligence.

Claim(s)

1) The Commission should reconsider the decision to terminate Grant Contract ENPI/2009/203-997.

2) The Commission should approve the amendment to the Grant Contract and authorize the participation in the project of the new Armenian partners (University of Yerevan and Armvir Region).

3) The Commission should release the second instalment of the grant.

4) The Commission should transfer the management of the Project from the EU Delegation in
Go to Source

Summary of decision on complaint 1181/2008/(BEH)KM against the European Commission

The complainant is a German university. Mr B, who was a professor at that university, applied for a grant from the European Commission’s “Culture 2000” programme. He did so in the name of the complainant, using the latter’s stationery bearing its letterhead. On 30 December 2000, the Commission and Mr B signed a grant agreement. In August 2005, an audit of the project expenses found that EUR 39 989.94 had to be repaid to the Commission.

In June 2006, the Commission sent the complainant a corresponding debit note. In its reply, the complainant stated that it had no information about the project and asked for further informat
Go to Source

Allegation(s)

1) The European Commission unlawfully and/or unfairly terminated Grant Contract ENPI/2009/203-997.

2) The Commission failed to manage the Project with due diligence.

Claim(s)

1) The Commission should reconsider its decision to terminate Grant Contract ENPI/2009/203-997.

2) The Commission should approve the amendment to the Grant Contract and authorise the participation in the project of the new Armenian Partners.

3) The Commission should release the second instalment of the grant.

4) The Commission should transfer the management of the Project to the EU Delegation in Jordan.

Go to Source

Allegation(s)

EPSO failed to treat the candidates who participated in Open Competition EPSO/AST/111/10-EN equally.

Claim(s)

EPSO should allow the complainant to re-sit her structured interview or it should reassess her performance by taking into account the circumstances of her case.

Go to Source

Allegation(s)

1) EPSO did not make suitable arrangements for the complainant’s participation in Open Competition EPSO/AD/220/11 for Polish-language (PL) translators (the ‘Competition’)[1].

2) EPSO’s website is not user-friendly for the visually impaired.

3) EPSO lacks a clear and consistent policy towards candidates who are visually impaired.

Claim(s)

1) EPSO should honour its commitment to rectify the problems experienced by the complainant during the tests of the Competition.

<
Go to Source

Allegation(s)

After having issued a reasoned opinion in the context of infringement proceedings against Spain, the Commission failed to take action within a reasonable time, either by bringing the matter before the Court of Justice or by closing the case.

Claim(s)

The Commission should either initiate proceedings before the Court of Justice against Spain or close the case.

Go to Source

Allegation(s)

EASA failed to confirm the flight conditions of the aircraft concerned within a reasonable time.

Claim(s)

EASA should confirm the flight conditions of the aircraft concerned.

Go to Source

Summary of decision on complaint 856/2008/BEH (confidential) against the European Anti-Fraud Office

The complaint was submitted by a journalist. In 2002, he contacted the President of the European Commission alerting him to certain irregularities which he believes occurred in relation to the European Parliament’s acquisition of the so-called D3 building in Brussels. On the basis of the information provided by the complainant, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) opened an investigation. In the course of that investigation, OLAF considered the complainant to be a ‘person concerned’ within the meaning of the OLAF Regulation and invited him to be heard as a witness at OLAF’s headquarters in Brussels, on the basis of Articl
Go to Source

Allegation(s)

1) The Translation Centre acted wrongly and unfairly when it excluded the complainant from tender procedure FL/TM11 (provision of services relating to the translation of standardised technical texts in the industrial/intellectual property field).

2) In the course of tender procedure FL/TM11, the Translation Centre provided wrong and inconsistent information to the complainant on acceptable forms of proof of the required translation experience.

3) The Translation Centre acted wrongly and unfairly when it excluded the complainant from tender procedure FL/MED11 (provision of services relating to the translation of medical and pharmaceutical texts).

Claim(s)

The Translation Centre should
Go to Source

The background to the complaint

1. The case concerns the rejection by the Commission of a request for public access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001.[1]

2. The complainant participated in open competition EPSO/AD/148/09 – RO. On 4 May 2010, he sent a request for access to documents to the European Personnel Selection Office (‘EPSO’) concerning: (i) certain statistical information about the number of candidates; and (ii) the bibliography used by the members of the Selection Board to mark the tests.

3. In an e-mail of 7 May 2010, EPSO rejected this request. In particular, EPSO replied that statistics may be produced in t
Go to Source

1. The complaint concerns the right of access to documents under Regulations 1049/2001[1] and 1367/2006[2] (the ‘Aarhus Regulation’). It was submitted jointly by two NGOs, Transport & Environment and ClientEarth (the ‘complainants’). In their own words, Transport & Environment is “an independent not-for-profit organisation whose mission is to promote transport policy that is based on science and the principle of sustainable development“, while ClientEarth is “a non-profit organisation dedicated to safeguarding the planet“.

The background to the complaint

2. The revision of the Fuel Qualit
Go to Source

Summary of decision on complaint 1329/2010/MF against the European Parliament (confidential)

On 1 May 2004, the Staff Regulations for Officials of the European Union (‘Staff Regulations’) introduced a new career structure and new salary scales. Transitional provisions included a “multiplication factor” (‘MF’) to determine the proportion of the new salary scale that was to be paid to each official recruited before 1 May 2004 and promoted after this date.

The complainant, a Parliament official, alleged that Parliament used a method of calculation of his salary which was different from the method used by the European Commission and all other EU institutions.

In its opinion on the complaint, Parliament argued
Go to Source

Allegation(s)

The Commission remains passive in face of the national authorities’ failure to reply to its requests for information about the matter.

Claim(s)

The Commission should take action to:

1) find a solution to the complaint; and

2) remedy the Slovak maladministration towards professional drivers.

Go to Source

Allegation(s)

1) The Commission failed to ensure that the EGE, in its current composition, is an independent and pluralist body.

2) The Commission failed to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why theology is considered as one of the relevant disciplines for membership of the EGE whereas philosophy is not.

Claim(s)

1) The Commission should overhaul the composition of the EGE in order to ensure that it is a truly independent and pluralist body.

2) The Commission should ensure that the criteria used to appoint the members of the EGE are not discriminatory and do not lead to the over-representation of specific religious groups, or religious groups in general.

Go to Source

The background to the complaint

1. The complainant is a British citizen specialising in data protection issues. On 27 April 2007, he sent an e-mail to the Secretariat-General of the European Commission, in which he put forward certain questions on ongoing infringement procedures concerning Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data.[1] The infringement procedures were mentioned in a Communication published by the Commission.[2]

2. The subject of the e-mail was entitled “Application for information under Regulation 1049/2001“. The questions put forward by the complainant were the following:

Go to Source

Summary of decision on complaint 1711/2010/BEH against the European Commission

The complaint was submitted by a lawyer acting on behalf of Mr B, who was a member of the European Commission’s temporary staff from 1989 to 1994. By paying contributions, Mr B had acquired entitlements to a pension from the EU pension scheme. Given that Mr B left the Commission before having served for a minimum of 10 years, he lost his right to receive a pension from the EU pension scheme but, upon termination of service, he received a severance grant. Considering that the grant consisted of different amounts, in March 2010 the complainant turned to the Commission and asked it to indicate the amount of pension entitlements acquired by Mr B w
Go to Source

The background to the complaint

1. The complainant worked for the European Commission from 2001 to 2009 as an auxiliary and contract agent. As of 16 May 2009, he obtained another post as a contract agent for the European Commission for a fixed period from 16 May 2009 to 15 May 2010.

2. He worked for a nine-month probationary period, until 16 February 2010. The report on his probationary report was positive and included the following comment: “maintien dans la fonction“.

3. In light of the above comment, the complainant thought that the Commission would automatically renew his contract.

4. However, on 4 May 2010, the complainant
Go to Source

The background to the complaint

1. This case is about the European Commission’s handling of an infringement complaint concerning Greek Law No. 6085/1934, which obliges vine-growers of Samos island in Greece to sell all their produce to the Union of Wine-Making Cooperatives of Samos.

2. At the origin of the complaint is the application for a licence to produce his own wine which the complainant, a Samos-based vine-grower represented by a solicitors’ firm, submitted to the prefectural authorities of Samos on 24 October 2007. The application in question was rejected.

3. On 28 February 2008, the complainant challenged the decision rejecting his application before th
Go to Source

Summary of decision on complaint 1733/2009/JF against the European Commission

The complainant, a French university, participated in a consortium that developed a Commission-sponsored project. After experiencing problems with the coordinator, the complainant withdrew from the project. The Commission then claimed reimbursement of some of the payments it had made to the complainant. The complainant found the Commission’s claims unfair and turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry in the course of which the Commission provided him with a detailed account of the amounts it had paid to the complainant. It explained that the complainant had failed to submit the necessary reports and deliverables in due ti
Go to Source

Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1]

The background to the complaint

1. The complainant is a Commission official. In September 2008, he went on a mission to a third country together with a colleague (who submitted complaint 2749/2009/KM). The mission was planned as follows:

Friday 19/9: Departure from Brussels airport at 10:00;

Saturday 20/9: Arrival at 06:25 local time;

Sunday 21/9: Rest day;

Monday 22/9 09:00 – Friday 26/9 18:00: Work;

Saturday 27/9: Free;

Sunday 28/9: Return flight departing at 09:15 and arriving in Brussels at 18:05.

2. The relevan
Go to Source

Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1]

The background to the complaint

1. The present case concerns the right of public access to documents and the exceptions to that right contained in Regulation 1049/2001. The documents in question relate to infringement proceedings by the European Commission against certain Member States.

2. The complainant is a German Ph.D. student. On 22 February 2009, he turned to the European Commission and requested access to certain documents relating to a number of infringement cases, which were then pending before the Court of Justice[2]
Go to Source

Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1]

The background to the complaint

1. Article 45a of the Staff Regulations refers to a so-called ‘certification’ procedure. It provides that, subject to certain conditions, EU officials in function group AST may be appointed to a post in function group AD. For that purpose, the official concerned must, in sum, be selected by the Appointing Authority to take part in a compulsory training programme defined by that Authority, complete the training programme and subsequently pass an oral and written examination demonstrating that s/he has successfully taken part in it<a name="_ftnref2" href="#_
Go to Source

The background to the complaint

1. The complainant is a company specialised in the implementation of projects in the field of information technology (‘IT’). At the time when the present complaint was submitted, the complainant was a contractor in several framework contracts with the European Commission, among which the ESP DESIS framework contracts[1].

2. In October – November 2006, pursuing a strategy designed to expand its pool of IT experts, the complainant sent job offers to IT professionals who were working for the Commission as external IT consultants. To that end, it used the e-mail addresses which the Commission had set up for its external co
Go to Source

The background to the inquiry

1. The complainant is a non-governmental organisation (‘NGO’) based in Damascus, Syria, which, in mid-2009, responded to two calls for proposals. The first call was the Open Call for Proposals entitled “Local and Regional Cultural Activities – EuropeAid/128-216/L/ACT/SY” (the ’2009 Call 216′); the second call was a Restricted Call for Proposals entitled “Non-State Actors in Development Actions in partner countries -EuropeAid/128-335/L/ACT/SY” (the ’2009 Call 335′). Both calls were launched by the Delegation of the European Union to Syria (the ‘Delegation’).

2. On 6 August 2009, the Chairperson of the Evaluation Committee for the 2009 Call
Go to Source

Allegation(s)

The complainant alleges that the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition (‘DG COMP’) failed properly to handle his complaint of 11 November 2009 (the ‘Complaint’) and to make a timely decision on it.

Claim(s)

The complainant claims that DG COMP should:

(i) make a decision on the Complaint or, alternatively, provide appropriate explanations as to why it has been unable as yet to reach a decision;

(ii) reply to his request for a meeting and to the matters raised in his correspondence of 14 March 2011;

(iii) reply to the matters raised in his correspondence of 18 January 2011 and apologise for the sentence (apparently originating from internal discussions) contained in
Go to Source

Summary of decision on complaint 1051/2010/BEH against the European External Action Service

The complaint was submitted by a German journalist. In 2010, he turned to the European Commission and requested access to a section on visa matters contained in a report on meetings, held in February 2010, between the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (the ‘High Representative’) and representatives of the Russian Federation. The Commission refused access.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant criticised the Commission’s failure to grant him access to the requested document without providing a convincing explanation as to why no such access could be granted. He cl
Go to Source

Summary of decision on complaint 1294/2009/(TN)DK against the European Commission

In February 2009, in accordance with Regulation 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, the complainant applied to the Commission for public access to a report on the impact assessment of a proposal for a Council Regulation (‘the Report’). In March 2009, the Commission gave partial access to the annexes of the Report, while refusing access to the Report itself on the ground that disclosure would undermine its decision-making process.

The complainant turned to the Ombudsman to complain about the Commission’s failure to gra
Go to Source

Allegation(s)

The Commission wrongly failed to register the complainant’s request for access to documents on the date on which it was received.

Claim(s)

1) The Commission should follow its own rules on the registration of requests for access to documents on the same day as they arrive. 

2) The Commission should inform applicants of the date on which the time limit for replying to their request for access to documents expires.

Go to Source

Allegation(s)

The EIB did not handle the complainant’s complaint properly.

Claim(s)

The EIB should ensure that the Polish authorities comply with all environmental requirements before disbursing any funds for the project.

Go to Source

Allegation(s)

The Commission abused the relevant procedures when it lodged its applications for the declaration of invalidity and for the revocation of the complainant’s Community trademark with the Office for Harmonization in the Internal market (‘OHIM’).

Claim(s)

1) The Commission should stop misusing trademark-related administrative proceedings against the complainant.

2) The Commission should stop its abuse of trademark “Europe INNOVA” or, alternatively, it should buy the complainant’s Community trademark. Otherwise, it should enter into a coexistence agreement which would provide adequate compensation to the complainant for its legal costs.

Go to Source

Summary of decision on complaint 489/2011/MHZ against the European Commission

A Polish NGO submitted a complaint to the Commission alleging that Poland infringed EU environmental law by allowing the construction of a high voltage power line in an inhabited area. The Commission took a preliminary decision to close the complaint file and invited the complainant to submit observations. After the complainant did so, it took the Commission seven months to take a final decision. The complainant alleged that its case had been mishandled and turned to the Ombudsman.

In its opinion, the Commission was not able to justify its delay. However, it provided an exemplary statement of reasons for its decision to close the infrin
Go to Source

Allegation(s)

1) The complainant alleged that Parliament failed: (i) to comply with its security rules, thus enabling two journalists from the Sunday Times to act under cover within Parliament’s premises, making unauthorised recordings with audio and video recording devices, amongst other things; (ii) to bring criminal charges against the Sunday Times or to inform the competent public prosecutor of the illegal entry into its premises; and (iii) to impose the sanctions provided in its Rules governing Photographers and Television Crews inside its buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg (Bureau Decision of 7 September 2005).

2) Parliament failed to defend the complainant from the accusations made against him or to offer him le
Go to Source

Allegation(s)

1) OLAF conducted its investigation concerning the complainant in a discriminatory manner because it concluded another investigation regarding another MEP quickly, whereas its investigation concerning the complainant is still ongoing.

2) OLAF failed to conclude its investigation concerning the complainant within a reasonable time.

Claim(s)

Acting in accordance with its duties, OLAF should take urgent measures to close its investigation concerning the complainant and inform him accordingly.

Go to Source

Allegation(s)

The method used by EPSO to neutralise erroneous questions in Open Competitions leads to unequal treatment of candidates.

Claim(s)

EPSO should re-examine the complainant’s result with a view to eliminating the unequal treatment of candidates.

Go to Source

Allegation(s)

The Commission failed to deal with the complainant’s request(s) for access to documents promptly and with due regard to the relevant deadlines.

Go to Source

Allegation(s)

Go to Source

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

Allegation(s)

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.

Claim(s)

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.

Go to Source