Background to the complaint

1. The complainant is an association of 36 local public authorities and municipalities in Galicia and the North of Portugal working to develop that cross-border area.

2. One of the cities in the region, Viana de Castelo, was selected to participate in the International Urban Cooperation (IUC) programme. This programme, funded by the European Union through its Foreign Policy Instrument (FPI), aims at supporting urban development through bilateral cooperation between cities around the world. It is coordinated, on behalf of the Commission, by a German company.

3. In the framework of the implementation of this programme, the complainant participated in a study visit to Brazil. A disagreement arose with the German company regarding the reimbursement of expenses incurred in relation to that visit.

4. On 20 July 2018, the complainant requested the Commission’s FPI Service to give it public access^[1] to the contract between the Commission and the German company.

5. On 6 August 2018, the Commission provided the complainant with a redacted copy of the contract, the Special Conditions and some of the Annexes.

6. The Commission explained that the requested documents were redacted as they contained some commercially sensitive information (including information pertaining to intellectual property) of the German company. The Commission stated that the complainant could make a request for review (a so-called “confirmatory application”) within 15 working days to the Secretary-General of the Commission.

7. On 3 September 2018, the complainant wrote back to the Commission service that it had originally contacted requesting full access to the contract. It did not contact the Secretary-General.

8. On 7 September 2018, the Commission confirmed its position and again informed the complainant that it could make a confirmatory application to the Secretary-General of the Commission.

9. The complainant did not do so, but turned to the Ombudsman on 8 March 2019.

The inquiry

10. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s failure to respond to the confirmatory application filed by the complainant.

The Ombudsman assessment

11. The Commission stated that the complainant’s letter of 3 September 2018 was not processed as a confirmatory application and could not be considered as such, as the complainant did not set out clearly its intention to seek a review of the initial reply.

12. The Commission added that the applicant had already been informed that it could send a confirmatory application to the Commission’s Secretary-General.  Instead, despite having been informed of the appropriate administrative procedure, it again contacted the Commission’s Directorate-General dealing with the dossier.

13. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman contacted the Commission and proposed that, as a simple, citizen-friendly solution, the Commission should now handle the complainant’s request of 7 September 2018 as a confirmatory application. 

14. The Commission agreed to do so and on 5 September 2019, the Commission responded to the confirmatory application. It partially reviewed its initial decision and provided a broader access to the documents.

15. The Ombudsman welcomes the Commission’s positive response to her proposal and considers that the complaint has now been settled by the Commission.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

The European Commission has settled the complaint.

The complainant and the European Commission will be informed of this decision.

 

Fergal Ó Regan

Head of Coordination of Public Interest Inquiries - Unit 2

Strasbourg, 04/10/2019

 

[1] In accordance with Regulation 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001R1049&rid=1.