The Commission's handling of a request for access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001

Available languages: bg.es.cs.da.de.et.el.en.fr.ga.it.lv.lt.hu.mt.nl.pl.pt.ro.sk.sl.fi.sv
  • Case: 0849/2010/KM
    Opened on 05 May 2010 - Decision on 07 Mar 2012
  • Institution(s) concerned: European Commission
  • Field(s) of law: Area of freedom, security and justice
  • Types of maladministration alleged – (i) breach of, or (ii) breach of duties relating to: Requests for public access to documents [Article 23 ECGAB]
  • Subject matter(s): Dealing with requests for information and access to documents (Transparency)
Watch
Author:
Copyright: Stocklib ©

Summary of the decision on complaint 849/2010/KM against the European Commission

The complainant, a German national, submitted a petition to the European Parliament in relation to the 2009 European Parliament elections. The Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament asked the European Commission for an opinion. On 5 January 2010, the complainant asked the Commission to grant him access to the questions which the Committee on Petitions had put to it and to the information which the Commission subsequently collected, for example, from Germany. This request was based on Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to documents.

On 16 March 2010, and after the complainant had submitted a confirmatory application for access, the Commission informed him that it had sent its opinion to the Committee on Petitions, which would explain the outcome of its investigation to him in due course.

On 29 March 2010, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman, arguing that the Commission should reply to his request and criticising the delay in handling it. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry.

In its opinion, the Commission admitted that it failed to handle the complainant's letters in accordance with Regulation 1049/2001 and stated that this mistake would be corrected. On 17 January 2011, it granted access to the relevant documents and apologised to the complainant for the delay.

The complainant was content with the documents he had received but maintained his criticism of the handling of his request. The Ombudsman normally considers that where an institution presents to a citizen an apology such as the one given by the Commission to the complainant, there are no grounds for further inquiries on his part. However, the Ombudsman took the view that this approach might not be sufficient in the present case, given that the complainant had already had to turn to the Ombudsman repeatedly to complain about delayed replies to other requests for access to documents. The Ombudsman therefore asked the Commission to explain what steps it had taken or it intended to take in order to ensure compliance with Regulation 1049/2001.

In its reply, the Commission listed a number of measures which the relevant Directorate-General had taken to improve compliance with Regulation 1049/2001. The complainant was pleased with the detailed reply and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.

The Ombudsman noted that it emerged from the information provided to him that the Commission had settled both the substantive and the procedural aspects of the complaint to the complainant's satisfaction. He therefore closed the case.