The case concerned a visit of the Commission President with the prime minister of a Member State. The complainant, then a Member of the European Parliament, raised concerns with the Commission about the visit. In parallel, she requested access to all documents related to the trip. In its initial reply, the Commission stated that it did not hold any documents related to the request.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry and sought to inspect documents the Commission may hold in relation to the request. After the Commission informed her that it had not identified any documents for inspection, the Ombudsman sent preliminary views to the Commission, outlining her view that such a visit would require prior consultations and exchanges within the Commission, as well as between the Commission and third parties. Based on this, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to look again for documents falling within the scope of the request with a view to granting the widest possible public access and urged the Commission, if it identified no documents, to explain how that could be the case.

After considerable delay, the Commission finally adopted its ‘confirmatory decision’ on the request, explaining that no documents were identified due to the private and non-official nature of the trip.

The Ombudsman was concerned that the Commission had failed to provide this explanation at the outset and, instead, continued processing the request. The Ombudsman was also concerned about the resulting delay, which led to the Commission considerably exceeding the time limits set out in the EU legislation on public access to documents. She noted that the work of commissioners and their private offices (cabinets) should be characterised by transparency and daily cooperation with Commission departments. The Ombudsman closed the case, finding that how the Commission handled the request, including the delay in stating that no documents existed, amounted to maladministration.