This inquiry concerned the European Commission’s compliance with the provisions on tobacco lobbying, as set out in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) of the World Health Organization. In particular, the Ombudsman assessed how the Commission ensures the transparency of its interactions with the tobacco industry.

The Ombudsman’s previous work had demonstrated how the Commission’s Directorates-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) and Taxation (DG TAXUD) comply with the obligations in this area. This inquiry sought to assess how the Commission complies with its obligations across all departments and concerning all Commission staff members.

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman shared with the Commission her preliminary findings. She signalled that the Commission’s failure to take a consistent approach across all its departments to complying with its obligations concerning the transparency of interactions with tobacco industry representatives constitutes maladministration. This included the failure to keep and make available minutes of meetings with tobacco interest representatives, as well as the failure to ensure a systemic assessment, across all directorates-general, as to whether potential meetings with tobacco industry representatives are needed.

In its reply, the Commission restated its standard approach to lobbying transparency and referred to the additional measures taken by DG SANTE and DG TAXUD, which existed prior to the Ombudsman’s inquiry. The Ombudsman therefore upheld her finding that the failure by the Commission to ensure a comprehensive approach across all its departments to transparency of meetings with representatives of the tobacco industry constitutes maladministration.

The Commission added, however, that it will instruct its management to conduct an assessment of the risk of exposure to the tobacco industry. The Ombudsman welcomed this commitment as a sign that things might improve in the future. The Ombudsman will write to the Commission, at the start of 2024, with the points she urges it to communicate to its directors-general, heads of service, and heads of cabinets as they conduct this assessment. The Ombudsman will also ask the Commission to report back by 30 June 2024 on the outcome of the assessment and the progress made on that basis.

The case concerned how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint against the Netherlands, regarding Dutch legislation on light electric vehicles. The complainant was concerned that he had not had any update from the Commission in over two years.

While the inquiry was ongoing, the Commission closed the case. However, the Ombudsman found that the Commission failed to demonstrate that it had handled the case actively and diligently. In particular, the Commission failed to provide a convincing justification for the delay in dealing with a case which, considering the reasons given to close the case, should have been clear from the outset. The Ombudsman considered that this constituted maladministration. However, as the Commission has since then acknowledged and apologised for the delay when closing the case, and has in parallel committed to improving its communication with complainants, the Ombudsman considered that no purpose would be served by making a recommendation.

The case concerned how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint concerning the compliance with EU law of the Italian system of alternative dispute resolution in the electronic communication sector. The complainant alleged that the Italian system infringes the EU’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Directive and fundamental rights.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission failed to deal with the infringement complaint with the necessary diligence, as it provided the complainant with unclear and apparently conflicting information and seemed to disregard the evidence provided by the complainant in support of his claim.

However, during the inquiry the Commission requested further information from the relevant Italian authority, and clarified its position on why it considers the Italian alternative dispute resolution system not to be in breach of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Directive. In light of this, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that no further inquiries are justified.

The case concerned the time the European Commission has taken to assess the reply of the Cypriot authorities in the context of an infringement procedure regarding the application of EU consumer law, notably whether Cyprus has in place an effective system for enforcing EU consumer law.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission gave reasonable explanations for the time taken to carry out its assessment, notably as the case requires examining the local administrative and judicial practice over time. The legal environment evolved during that time and the Commission had to process a significant amount of information. 

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry, finding no maladministration. The Ombudsman nonetheless encouraged the Commission to ensure that the processing of infringement cases is not slowed down by inadequate staffing or other administrative issues.