Alleged failure to provide valid and adequate grounds for refusing access to the requested documents

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: 0900/2010/(MF)RT
    Opened on 01 Jul 2010 - Decision on 11 May 2012
  • Institution(s) concerned: European Parliament
  • Field(s) of law: General, financial and institutional matters
  • 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)
hand holding coins
Author: Nikita Sobolkov
Copyright: Stocklib © Nikita Sobolkov

Summary of the decision on complaint 900/2010/(MF)RT against the European Parliament

In August 2009, the complainant, a European Parliament official, was promoted to grade AST 7 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2008. Subsequently, the complainant discovered that he was no longer receiving the compensatory allowance. By decision of Parliament, this allowance was paid to officials until their promotion to grade AST 8. The complainant intended to lodge a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations regarding the non-payment of the compensatory allowance. In this respect, he requested access to (i) the audit report regarding the award of compensatory allowance and the impact of the withdrawal of such an allowance for some officials and (ii) the legal opinion of Parliament's Legal Service on the withdrawal of the compensatory allowance from some officials. Parliament rejected the complainant's request for access. The complainant turned to the European Ombudsman. He alleged that Parliament failed to provide valid and adequate grounds for not granting full access to the requested documents. He claimed that Parliament should grant him access to the requested documents.

In its opinion, Parliament argued that disclosure of the requested documents would have seriously undermined its ongoing decision-making process in respect of complaints submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

The Ombudsman was not convinced that Parliament's explanation was sufficient to support the view that disclosure of the requested documents would specifically and actually undermine Parliament's decision-making process. Moreover, Parliament failed to demonstrate that the risk for its decision-making process was serious and not purely hypothetical. Taking into account these findings, the Ombudsman made a proposal for a friendly solution to Parliament.

Parliament rejected the proposal for a friendly solution and maintained its initial view. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman closed the case with a critical remark.