The case concerned the Commission’s refusal to give public access to documents related to State aid investigations, in which persons had been recognised as an ‘interested party’ despite being neither a beneficiary of the aid nor a competitor. In refusing access, the Commission relied on a general presumption of non-disclosure, arguing that the release of any document would undermine the purpose of its investigations and the commercial interests of the companies concerned. The complainant contested the Commission’s position. Specifically, he contended that there would be an overriding public interest in disclosure, that is, the need to scrutinise the Commission’s practice of admitting complainants as ‘interested parties’. In particular, the complaint raised concerns that the Commission might interpret this notion too narrowly, thereby recognising only beneficiaries or competitors as ‘interested parties’ entitled to lodge a complaint.

Based on her inquiry, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant sought statistical information about the Commission’s practice rather than access to specific documents. In light of this, the Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution, inviting the Commission to deal with the complainant’s request as a request for information and to provide him with relevant information about its State aid procedure that would address the concerns that he had raised.

The Commission accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution and provided the complainant with detailed information on its practice related to the investigation of potentially unlawful State aid, including information on sample cases. The complainant was satisfied with this reply. The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s positive response to her proposal for a solution and closed the inquiry.

The case concerned the time taken by the European Commission to conclude its assessment of an infringement complaint against Spain made in 2018. The infringement complaint concerned the legislative changes introduced in 2014 in the Spanish Ports Act and the subsequent extension, by the port authority of the Balearic Islands, of the duration of concessions to carry out recreational water sport activities on the port public domain. In his infringement complaint, the complainant argued, in essence, that the said legislatives changes and the extension, by the port authority of the Balearic Islands, of the duration of the concessions breached Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission failed to demonstrate that it had been diligent and active on the case, and that it failed to provide convincing reasons to explain why it had not been able to finalise its assessment after more than seven years. The Ombudsman considered that this constituted maladministration and made a recommendation that the Commission should finalise its assessment without further delay. The Ombudsman also identified issues related to information provided to the complainant and record keeping in relation to the EU Pilot dialogue that the Commission conducted with Spain and she made two corresponding suggestions for improvement in that regard.

The case concerned how the European Commission mitigated the conflict of interest risks related to a job in the private sector taken up by a former manager. The staff member, who had been in the past employed in the Commission’s competition department, moved to a transnational [redacted] company as a senior manager responsible for competition and regulatory matters, including for Europe. Before moving to the role with the [redacted] company, the former staff member had left the Commission and joined a global law firm. The Commission had authorised the move to the law firm, after the former staff member notified it of the intention to take up that job.

The Ombudsman found that, in the context of authorising the move to the law firm, the Commission had adopted measures to mitigate the risk posed by the former staff member working on files or cases that would be relevant for the job with the law firm. The Commission’s decision to authorise the move to the law firm also included several restrictions. For example, the former staff member was prohibited to work, directly or indirectly, on any cases that fell under the former staff member’s responsibility while in service, or any cases directly related to them. To help the former staff member identify the cases that could raise conflict of interest issues at any time after leaving the service, the Commission included a list of cases, which it updated after the staff member had effectively left.

The Ombudsman’s inquiry confirmed that the Commission adopted a robust approach to assessing, in the context of the former staff member’s subsequent role with the [redacted] company, whether competition cases that are not included in the abovementioned list could nonetheless lead to a conflict of interest because they are related to cases that the former staff member had been responsible for. The Ombudsman welcomed this approach.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry concluding that there was no maladministration in how the Commission dealt with the conflict of interest risks related to the job in question.