The complainant is an IT company which participated in a Commission tender. The Commission asked all tenderers to complete two case studies to allow it to evaluate their technical abilities.

The complainant took issue with the fact that one of the case studies was very similar to a tender recently organised by an EU agency. It alleged that this gave the companies which had won that tender a competitive advantage in the Commission tender. The complainant also took issue with the Commission's decision not to disclose the names of the persons who evaluated the proposals for the Commission.

Following her inquiry, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission's design of the tender procedure did not confer a competitive advantage on the winning tenderer. As regards the disclosure of the names of the evaluators, the Ombudsman suggests that the Commission consider releasing such names in the future.

The complainant was the object of an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). OLAF disclosed details of the outcome of its investigation to a third party, which were published in a press article in the complainant's country. The European Data Protection Supervisor deemed the disclosure to be contrary to the EU data protection rules. Subsequently, the complainant requested that OLAF admit wrongdoing in disclosing the personal information and apologise for it.

OLAF initially refused to do so. However, following the Ombudsman's inquiry, it sent a letter to the complainant in which it expressed regret for not acting in accordance with data protection rules in his case and apologised to him. Although the complainant was not satisfied with the apology, the Ombudsman took the view that it met the complainant's claim and thus concluded that there were no grounds for him to conduct further inquiries into the complaint.

In March 2005, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Commission concerning alleged infringements by Finland of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. She complained to the Commission that a Finnish municipality published sensitive personal details concerning her daughter on a municipal website. The complainant alleged that the Commission failed to investigate her complaint properly, and that it wrongly refused her access under Regulation 1049/2001 to documents relating to the Commission's inquiries.

As regards the complainant's argument that the Commission should bring a case against Finland before the Court of Justice using Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Ombudsman recalled that Article 258 TFEU is normally applied only where an administrative practice contrary to EU law is consistent and general in nature. Further, a Member State cannot be brought before the Court of Justice using Article 258 TFEU, if the Member State has already brought its administrative practice into line with EU law before a reasoned opinion is sent to it. The Commission informed the Ombudsman that the Finnish Local Authority Guidelines were modified in March 2008, in order that the right to data protection by municipal authorities be better protected. Since the current Local Authority Guidelines appear to comply with data protection rules, the Commission has no grounds on which to bring a case against Finland. The Ombudsman welcomed the fact that the Commission was continuing to monitor the case in light of the ongoing litigation before the Finnish courts regarding the underlying issue.

The Ombudsman thus found no maladministration as regards the allegation that the Commission failed to investigate the complaint properly.

As regards the alleged wrongful refusal to give the complainant access to documents, the Ombudsman noted that, during his inquiry, the Commission decided to grant the complainant access to the documents in question. The allegation and claim were thus settled by the Commission.