You have a complaint against an EU institution or body?

Search inquiries

Text search

Document type

Institution concerned

Type of settlement

Case number

Language

Date range

Keywords

Communication

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Showing 1 - 20 of 63 results

Decision in case 1498/2019/NH on the European Parliament not sending its reply to an access to documents request by e-mail

Thursday | 28 May 2020

The case concerned the refusal by the European Parliament to send a decision refusing public access to documents by e-mail.

The Ombudsman found that Parliament’s reply to the complainant was reasonable in the given context, as the complainant had already received the decision by registered post.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there had been no maladministration by Parliament in this case.

Decision in case 1484/2019/UNK on the European Commission’s handling of a request for full public access to drafts of an article on the copyright directive published on the Commission's website

Monday | 02 December 2019

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to redact the names of Commission staff members from a document before granting the complainant public access to it.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission was correct to redact the names. She therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.  

Decision in case 552/2018/MIG on the European Commission’s refusal of public access to documents concerning the German Network Enforcement Act

Wednesday | 20 November 2019

The case concerned a request for public access to documents held by the European Commission concerning the German Network Enforcement Act[1], a national law aimed at combating fake news on social networks.

The Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution, asking the Commission to re-consider its (partial) refusal to grant public access to the documents. The Commission did not reply within the deadline specified by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman then made a recommendation to the Commission.

The Commission responded that it did not accept the Ombudsman’s recommendation.

The Ombudsman regrets that the Commission did not follow her recommendation. She maintains her findings of maladministration.

 

[1] In German the “Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz”, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/.

Decision in case 1731/2018/FP on the refusal by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency to grant public access to the documents submitted by a public undertaking for a funding approval in the context of a call for proposals by the Connecting Europe Facility

Friday | 04 October 2019

The case concerned the refusal by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) to grant public access to documents submitted by a national cybersecurity authority that was seeking funding from INEA.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and proposed that INEA should partially disclose the requested documents, redacting only information that it considers to be genuinely commercially sensitive or personal data.

INEA rejected the Ombudsman’s proposal, arguing that most of the information that could be disclosed was already in the public domain and the proposed partial disclosure would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on INEA. It also said that it accepted the arguments of the national cybersecurity authority regarding the likely damage disclosure would cause to its commercial interests.

The Ombudsman found INEA’s refusal to grant even partial access to the requested documents to be maladministration and recommended that INEA partially disclose the relevant Grant application.

INEA rejected the Ombudsman’s recommendation. Consequently, the Ombudsman now closes the case, confirming her finding of maladministration.

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 552/2018/MIG on the European Commission’s refusal of public access to documents concerning the German Network Enforcement Act

Tuesday | 11 June 2019

The case concerned a refusal by the Commission, in 2017, to give a Member of the European Parliament public access to Commission documents regarding a new German social media law. The complainant considered that the Commission had failed to identify all the documents falling within the scope of her request. Regarding those documents it did identify, she considered that the Commission had wrongly redacted the documents.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had failed to identify all the documents falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. She also found that the redactions made by the Commission were excessive. She thus proposed that the Commission reassess the scope of the request and reconsider its decision to (partially) deny access to the identified documents.

The Commission did not follow this solution proposal. As the Ombudsman considers the Commission’s handling of the complainant’s access request to constitute maladministration, she makes a corresponding recommendation and expresses her concern at the inordinate length of time the Commission has taken in dealing with this matter.

Decision in case 2124/2017/KT on the treatment of certain journalists by the European Parliament’s Information Office in Cyprus

Thursday | 25 April 2019

The complaint was about how the European Parliament’s Information Office in Cyprus selected journalists to travel to a conference in Brussels organised by Parliament. The complainant considered that the Information Office´s outreach policy is not transparent, especially when it comes to selecting journalists to travel abroad to cover its activities.

The Ombudsman found that Parliament’s criteria for selecting journalists were reasonable and concluded that there was no maladministration.