The complainant, a journalist, asked the European Commission to grant public access to documents concerning the human rights monitoring of EU activities in Libya. The Commission identified six documents as falling under the scope of the request. It provided access to parts of some of the documents identified and refused access to the remaining documents. In doing so, it invoked exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing mainly that disclosure could undermine the protection of public security.

Based on the inquiry and an inspection of the documents, the Ombudsman found that the Commission was not justified in redacting substantial parts of the information it redacted. To address this maladministration, she recommended that the Commission consider granting wider access to the documents in question. The Ombudsman also found that the Commission had failed to identify all relevant documents that fall within the scope of the complainant’s request. To address this, she recommended that the Commission conduct a new search for documents, and assess whether it could grant access to additional documents it identified.

In reply, the Commission carried out a renewed search but did not identify additional documents as it considered that the substantive reports mentioned by the Ombudsman were not covered by the request. It also argued that the widest possible access had been granted already to the documents it identified, and added that (wider) partial access would constitute a disproportionate administrative burden.

The Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s interpretation of the scope of the request was unduly restrictive. She also remained unconvinced that no further access could be granted to the documents identified and considered unfounded the argument that doing so would create a disproportionate administrative burden.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the case confirming her finding of maladministration, and making a suggestion.