Søg efter undersøgelser

The complainant, a journalist, asked the European Commission for public access to documents concerning the adoption of EU rules on real driving emissions values. The Commission refused to grant access. In doing so, it invoked an exception under the EU's legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure could undermine legal proceedings, as the matter had previously been subject to court proceedings and could be again in the future.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents in question and confirmed that they contain internal legal advice concerning a judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018. The Ombudsman found that, in view of the specific context of the case, it was reasonable for the Commission to assume that the same subject matter would be challenged in court again.

She therefore considered that the Commission was justified in protecting the confidentiality of four out of five documents at this stage, and concluded that there was no maladministration.

The fifth document is an official Commission decision to appeal to the Court. The Ombudsman’s view is that this document could be made public, in particular because the Commission’s arguments (as presented to the Court) are reflected in the publicly available opinion of the Advocate General. However, since this document was not the main document at issue of the complaint, the Ombudsman does not find it justified to prolong the inquiry into this matter. She trusts that the Commission will look at the document again and reconsider its position.

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to recover funds from an organisation that carried out an EU-funded project relating to environmental protection and biodiversity in the Horn of Africa. The Commission sought to recover the funds following the findings of an audit report. The complainant contested this decision.

In the course of the inquiry, the Commission waived its decision to recover the funds granted for one of the costs. The Commission further explained why it had considered the other costs concerned as ineligible. The Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s explanations were reasonable and closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

Sagen vedrørte en anmodning om aktindsigt i dokumenter, som Den Europæiske Fødevaresikkerhedsautoritet (EFSA) er i besiddelse af vedrørende bly i ammunition. Det tog EFSA mere end syv måneder at behandle anmodningen, idet fristen flere gange blev forlænget, hvilket forhindrede klageren i at bruge dokumenterne til at udarbejde et bidrag til en offentlig høring, der blev afholdt af et andet EU-agentur.

Ombudsmanden indledte en undersøgelse og fandt, at EFSA's behandling af klagerens anmodning om aktindsigt udgjorde et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, navnlig den manglende overholdelse af de frister, der er fastsat i EU-lovgivningen om aktindsigt. Hun anbefalede, at EFSA ophørte med at forlænge de fastsatte frister til mere end 30 arbejdsdage, når den foreslog en "rimelig løsning". Hun anbefalede også, at EFSA på et tidligt tidspunkt skulle stille en liste over de dokumenter, den identificerer, til rådighed for sagsøgerne, når en anmodning om aktindsigt er bredt formuleret.

EFSA var positiv over for Ombudsmandens henstillinger og forpligtede sig til at ændre sine regler og praksis for at sikre, at anmodninger om aktindsigt i dokumenter behandles hurtigt. Ombudsmanden afsluttede undersøgelsen og glæder sig over EFSA's positive udtalelse og de skridt, den allerede har taget og agter at tage for at gennemføre Ombudsmandens henstillinger.