The annual report of the Court of Justice of the European Union is divided into two parts, entitled Judicial activity and Management report. The Court of Justice of the European Union also publishes The year in review, which is a summary of the annual report. 

		The year in review ‘The year in review’ summarises the activity of the Court of Justice of the European Union from its judicial, institutional and administrative aspects. It presents the most significant judgments, explaining their implications for European citizens, and, using images, infographics and statistics, provides an overview of events that have marked the year..  The year in review (Provisional version)   Previous editions
		Judicial activity This part of the report contains a detailed review of the judicial activity of the Court of Justice and the General Court, providing an analysis of the case law with links to full texts, and presenting the year’s judicial statistics.  Judicial activity (Provisional version)   Previous editions		Management report (Annual activity report of the authorising officer by delegation) Every year, the institution’s authorising officer by delegation reports to the Union’s budgetary authorities, in accordance with the financial rules applicable, on the management of the institution’s appropriations and expenditure in the form of an annual activity report. The report, entitled ‘Management report’, includes the results achieved by the institution by virtue of the resources allocated to it and the functioning of the internal control systems.  Version française   Previous editions

Dear Cathaoirleach,

Thank you and the Committee for the invitation to talk to you today. I welcome the opportunity to tell you about the work of my Office in the sector and to discuss any particular interests or concerns as the Committee may like to raise with me.

As you will know, each year since my remit over the Direct Provision sector was confirmed in April 2017 I have published a Commentary on the work of my Office in the sector.  I discussed my Commentaries for 2017 and 2018 at my appearance on 25 September 2019 before the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality.

My Office’s Outreach Programme

You will recall from that previous appearance that I agreed to that Committee’s suggestion for me to include unannounced visits in the scope of my Office’s Outreach Programme of visits to centres where we felt such an approach was appropriate.  My Outreach team undertook a small number of such visits in the latter part of 2019, two of which I discussed in my Commentary for that year.  The team found the unannounced visits were a very valuable mechanism for following up on cases where our normal post-visit engagement (...)

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has criticised the way a north Yorkshire district council administered a discretionary grant scheme which was designed to help businesses impacted by COVID-19.

In March and May 2020, the Government introduced grant schemes to support businesses impacted by the pandemic. Businesses who qualified under these schemes could receive grants of £25,000, £10,000 or any sum under £10,000.

The Ombudsman was contacted by two small business owners who complained about the way Craven District Council handled their grant applications.

In the first case, a man who runs a small business from a shared office was awarded a grant of £1,000, later increased to £2,000 on appeal. The second man, who runs a business from his home, was awarded £2,000. That man also appealed and was unsuccessful.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found a lack of transparency with the way the council recorded how it decided the level of grants businesses would receive. The council decided it would favour some sectors over others, but did not publish this information. It also gave more weight to the business sector than it did to the size of the business or their costs and losses - despite saying these were key deciding factors. The council therefore raised some small business owners’ expectations that they may receive grants of up to £5,000 when this was rarely the case.

The investigation also found a lack of record keeping explaining the council’s individual decisions and inconsistent decision making, raising concerns with the way the council allocated its grants, and at times made awards to businesses in direct contradiction to the rules of its scheme. 

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“We have carefully considered how the council had to react quickly to new challenges in preparing its COVID support scheme last year, but have decided it still failed to administer it properly.

“We published guidance to councils on good administrative practice during the pandemic, and advised them that those basic principles of openness and transparency should remain the bedrock of councils’ work regardless of the external pressures they are under.

“I hope that the ‘lesson learned’ exercise I have asked the council to carry out will help inform good practice in any future policies and procedures both this, and any other council, introduces.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In this case the council should apologise to both men and pay them £500 in recognition of the distress caused by its raised expectations and uncertainty.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council should ask its scrutiny committee to carry out a ‘lessons learned’ exercise, and provide clear guidance to staff setting out records they should keep.

Article date: 18 May 2021

European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly has launched a wide-ranging inquiry into how the Commission handles so-called ‘revolving doors’ cases among its staff. The inquiry is part of a reinforced monitoring of how the EU administration implements the ethics obligations on EU staff who move to the private sector.

The Ombudsman will inspect 100 personnel files related to decisions by the Commission on requests by senior and mid-level managers for approval of either new employment or of unpaid leave in order to undertake another activity.

The files cover a total of 14 Directorate-Generals in addition to all commissioner cabinets, the Commission’s Legal Service, Secretariat-General, internal think tank and the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. The wide scope aims to ensure a broad understanding of how such decisions are taken across a range of Commission departments.

“Robust management of the ‘rev