You have a complaint
against an EU institution or body?

Search cases

Text search

Document type

Institution concerned

Type of settlement

Case number

Language

Date range

Keywords

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Showing 1 - 20 of 30 results

Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 119/2015/PHP on the European Commission's handling of a request for public access to documents related to TTIP

Wednesday | 04 November 2015

The case concerned a request for access to documents concerning the Trans-Atlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations. The Commission denied access to some of the requested documents on grounds of the protection of international relations and the decision-making process. The complainants turned to the Ombudsman and argued that the Commission had not sufficiently justified the refusal to grant access and had failed to make a document-by-document assessment. Moreover, the complainants referred to the existence of an overriding public interest when environmental information is concerned.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found no maladministration by the Commission. In her closing decision, the Ombudsman observed that some of the concerns raised by the complainants had already been addressed in the context of the Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry on the transparency of the TTIP negotiations. She has therefore decided to close the case.

Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 1777/2014/PHP on the European Commission's handling of a request for public access to documents concerning TTIP

Friday | 30 October 2015

The case concerned a request for access to documents related to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations. The Commission refused access to certain documents on the grounds of the protection of international relations and the decision-making process. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman and argued that the Commission had failed to justify the exceptions invoked and its view that there was no overriding public interest in disclosing the requested documents.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission's decision to refuse access to the requested documents was well-founded. In addition, the Ombudsman noted that the complainant's underlying concerns had been comprehensively examined by the Ombudsman in her own-initiative inquiry on the transparency of the TTIP negotiations. She has therefore decided to close the case.

Decision in case 689/2014/JAS on the Council's handling of a request for public access to documents regarding Iran sanctions

Wednesday | 02 September 2015

The complaint was made by an entity subject to EU imposed restrictive measures. It complained about the Council of the European Union's handling of a request for public access to documents related to a meeting of the Council's Foreign Relations Counsellors "Sanctions" formation Working Party, where various issues in relation to restrictive measures against Iran had been discussed.

The Council refused to release some parts of the documents in question, arguing that the release would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations and would seriously undermine the Council's decision-making-process. The rest of the documents, not covered by these exceptions, were released.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Council was justified in refusing access to those parts of the documents which it had withheld. Therefore, the Ombudsman concluded that there was no maladministration by the Council.

Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the own-initiative inquiry OI/15/2014/PMC into the way in which the European External Action Service (EEAS) handles allegations of serious irregularities involving the EU Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) in Kosovo

Thursday | 04 December 2014

After the Ombudsman's attention had been drawn to certain alleged serious irregularities affecting EULEX by a EULEX Prosecutor as well as by the media, the Ombudsman decided to open an own-initiative inquiry in order to assess whether the EEAS/EULEX had properly investigated or are properly investigating these allegations.

In order to ascertain what action needed to be taken by her, the Ombudsman inspected the EEAS'/ EULEX file concerning the matter. The inspection showed that EULEX had conducted a preliminary internal investigation and had recruited an external prosecutor to investigate the irregularities. In addition, the EEAS had appointed an experienced expert to review EULEX's mandate from a systemic point of view, with a particular focus on the allegations raised.

The Ombudsman noted that EULEX did not follow its standard procedure for investigating such allegations. She also found that the way in which the external prosecutor was recruited needed to be examined. However, given that the expert recently appointed by the EU High Representative has made it clear that these issues will form part of the review to be carried out by him, the Ombudsman took the view that there was no need for further action on her part at present.