The European Commission funds research programmes in Europe through Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. This complaint concerns alleged irregularities in the evaluation of a proposal submitted by a consortium seeking such funding under the programme's energy section.

In February 2013, the Commission informed the complainant that its project proposal was rejected. The complainant then submitted a request for redress to the Commission. As it was unhappy with the results of that redress procedure, it complained to the Ombudsman that the Commission had erred in the evaluation of its proposal. It complained also that a Commission official, in a public forum, had disclosed the results of the selection procedure two weeks before the official results were notified. During the inquiry, the complainant argued that one of the independent expert evaluators had a conflict of interest.

The Ombudsman found no maladministration regarding the evaluation of the complainant's proposal. However, the Ombudsman found that the Commission's premature disclosure of the results of the selection procedure amounted to maladministration.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman found that the Commission failed to manage and address an appearance of a conflict of interest in the case of one of its expert evaluators. This failure amounted to maladministration. With a view to improving the Commission's procedures, the Ombudsman remarked that the Commission should ensure that it acquires, at the outset, all necessary information concerning relevant interests and that it should address any appearances of a conflict of interest which arise.

The case concerned access to documents relating to the EU's natural gas policy and, specifically, documents regarding the control of investments by third countries in the network infrastructure of the EU Member States. A British academic complained to the Ombudsman about the Commission's refusal to grant access to most of the documents sought. He complained also that the Commission relied on more than one exception in refusing access to some individual documents and that it did not specify which exception applied to which section of the particular document.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and concluded that, while it could have been more transparent, no further inquiries were justified into the complainant's allegation that the Commission failed to specify the precise exception it applied in cases where it relied on more than one exception for refusing access. She also concluded that there was no maladministration by the Commission as regards the remainder of the complaint.

In her decision, the Ombudsman also made a further remark that the Commission, where it rejects a request for access to documents by relying on more than one of the exceptions set out in Regulation 1049/2001, should provide the applicant with sufficient information to allow him or her to understand which exception is invoked as regards specific sections of the document concerned.

The case concerned the alleged failure of the European Commission to give reasons for rejecting the complainant's projects in the area of trans-European energy infrastructures. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found the explanation provided by the Commission in the course of the inquiry to be convincing and satisfactory.

The complaint is about access to documents relating to the review of the Regulations on CO₂ emissions from vehicles and was submitted by Greenpeace, a non-governmental environmental organisation.

In this context, the complainant asked the Commission for access to its exchanges with German car manufacturers and automobile trade associations from 15 May to 15 July 2012. The Commission granted access to all documents it identified as falling within the complainant's request.

In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant argued that the disclosed documents do not constitute a coherent set of correspondence. The complainant therefore alleged that the Commission did not make a complete disclosure of the requested documents.

Given that the thrust of the complaint was the disagreement as to the existence of certain documents, the Ombudsman decided, as a first step of his inquiry, to carry out an inspection of documents. In order to establish whether any documents may have been misplaced, the Ombudsman's services inspected a wider category of documents than those falling within the scope of the complainant's applications for access.

On the basis of the inspection of documents, the Ombudsman identified two additional documents which the Commission ought to have identified in its reply to the complainant's request. However, taking into account that the Commission had already given access to the first document and that the full contents of the second document were disclosed to the complainant in the report on the inspection, the Ombudsman considered that there were no grounds for further inquiries concerning these two documents.

On a more general level, the Ombudsman considered that there was nothing to suggest that the Commission held any other documents from car manufacturers and automobile associations other than those already disclosed to the complainant. Moreover, the Ombudsman considered that the content of the inspected documents explained the presumed lack of coherence in the disclosed documents.

In light of these considerations, the Ombudsman found that no further inquiries were justified and he therefore closed the case.

The European Biofuels Technology Platform ('the Platform') is a body which is independent of the Commission but has close links with it. The Platform has direct input into the Commission's biofuel research policy and indirect input into the Commission's overall energy policy.

An NGO that was concerned that the Commission did not sufficiently take into account issues of public interest in the field of biofuels complained to the European Ombudsman.

The main allegation which the Ombudsman took up for inquiry was that the Commission failed adequately to address the complainant's concerns regarding the balanced representation of stakeholders in the composition of the Platform.

In his preliminary assessment, the Ombudsman found that, although the Commission provided clarifications about the functioning of the Platform within the context of biofuels research policy and, more generally, the Commission's overall policy, it did not adequately address all the complainant's concerns. The Ombudsman proposed, as a friendly solution, that the Commission could consider specifying whether there are mechanisms to ensure (i) the objectivity of the Platform's recommendations, (ii) attention to issues of public interest, and (iii) to what extent external input is taken into account by the Commission.

In analysing the Commission's reply to his proposal, the Ombudsman acknowledged the initiatives taken by the Commission both in relation to the objectivity of the Platform's recommendations and the equality of opportunity to stakeholders. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman identified certain shortcomings and he, therefore, made draft recommendations that the Commission should consider taking (i) the necessary initiatives to enhance the objectivity of the Platform's recommendations in the field of biofuel research policy and (ii) further measures to ensure that it receives a pluralistic and objective input concerning policy initiatives in the field of renewable energy.

In spite of its objections to the Ombudsman's findings of maladministration, the Commission outlined the initiatives taken to implement the Ombudsman's draft recommendations.

The Ombudsman found that, even though these initiatives lacked detail, they constituted steps in the right direction. The Ombudsman trusted that the Commission's undertakings would translate into concrete actions and practices in the implementation of the new Horizon 2020 Programme.

In light of these considerations, the Ombudsman found that no further inquiries were justified into the complaint.