The case concerned the timing of the entry into force of a ban on the sale of food containing residues of a pesticide. The complainant, who represents importers of basmati rice, wanted to delay the entry into force of the ban to allow enough time to dispose of stocks of rice produced using the pesticide.

The Commission has wide discretion when deciding upon the measures necessary to protect public health. It explained why it was necessary to introduce the ban. It also gave stakeholders adequate advance notice of the entry into force of the ban. Thus, the Ombudsman found no maladministration.

The case concerned a request for public access to internal communication relating to a blog post published by the European Commission. The blog post was, following public criticism, removed from the Internet. The Commission identified one document as falling within the scope of the complainant’s request.

The complainant questioned whether the Commission had identified and released all relevant documents. He considered that, if it were the case that the Commission had actively deleted such communications or classified them as short-lived, this would have been in contradiction with the Commission’s obligations regarding openness.

The Ombudsman has inquired into the issue and does not consider the absence of any record or other evidence of the existence or deletion of written communications on this matter to be unreasonable. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents related to four meetings between Commissioner Jourová and several external stakeholders. Having waited for a reply from the Commission for six months, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry because after her intervention, the Commission replied to the complainant and granted partial access to the requested documents.

The cases concerned the European Commission’s handling of an infringement complaint against Bulgaria about enforcement proceedings at national level and their compliance with EU consumer protection law. The complainants took issue with the Commission’s delay in taking a decision on the infringement complaint.

During the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission started an infringement procedure against Bulgaria. The Ombudsman considered that the time it took the Commission to take a decision was justified by the specific circumstances of the case and closed her inquiry finding no maladministration.

The case concerned how the European Commission dealt with a complaint from an industry association concerning an airline’s compliance with EU rules on computerised reservation systems.

The Commission sent a letter to the complainant informing it of its intention to reject the complaint. The complainant disagreed with the Commission’s reasoning. It also considered that the Commission had not dealt with its complaint within a reasonable timeframe and had set too short a deadline to submit observations.

As the Commission has said that it will shortly send a second letter to the complainant with further explanations for rejecting the complaint, it would serve no useful purpose at this stage to inquire further into the Commission’s reasoning.

The Ombudsman found that the time taken by the Commission to date to deal with the complaint was reasonable, given its complexity. She also found that the complainant had had sufficient opportunity to submit its observations. The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration concerning these aspects of the complaint.