Failure to grant full access to documents

Tilgængelige sprog :  bg.es.cs.da.de.et.el.en.fr.ga.it.lv.lt.hu.mt.nl.pl.pt.ro.sk.sl.fi.sv
  • Sag :  1294/2009/(TN)DK
    Indledt den 02-07-2009 - Afgørelse af 03-11-2011
  • Berørte institution(er) :  Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
  • Retsområde(r) :  Generelle, institutionelle og finansielle spørgsmål
  • Former for påståede fejl eller forsømmelser - i) overtrædelser eller ii) manglende overholdelse af forpligtelser i forbindelse med :  Begæring om aktindsigt [Artikel 23 EKGF]
  • Emne(r) :  Håndtering af anmodninger om oplysninger og indsigt i dokumenter (åbenhad)
Office documents and folders
Forfatter:
Copyrigt: Stocklib ©

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 grant full access to the Report. During the Ombudsman's inquiry, the Commission submitted its legislative proposal to the Council and the European Parliament, which was, in part, formulated on the basis of the content of the Report in question. Further to the Ombudsman's specific request in this regard, the Commission gave full access to the Report on 13 September 2011.

The Ombudsman nevertheless proceeded to carry out an analysis of the Commission's initial decision not to grant full access to the Report. The Ombudsman found that the Commission did not sufficiently demonstrate why the disclosure of the requested Report at the time of the original application would have seriously undermined its decision-making process and that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure. The Ombudsman therefore made a critical remark.