The case concerned how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint against Austria concerning the rules for fees and cost structures in volleyball. The complainant, an Austrian sports association, argued that the fees, which were payable on a yearly basis even for amateur players, were excessive and against EU law. The complainant contended that the time taken by the Commission to carry out the initial assessment of the infringement complaint was not reasonable.

The Ombudsman found that, while there were periods when the Commission was not active on the file, there was nothing to suggest that the time taken was the result of negligence or unjustified postponements by the Commission. Since, in the course of the inquiry, the Commission ultimately took a decision on the infringement complaint and acknowledged mistakes in how it communicated with the complainant, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified. She noted, in this context, the Commission’s commitment to improving how it communicates with complainants in future.

The case concerned the refusal by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to disclose the names of staff members who supervised a project in Macedonia.

The Ombudsman found that the EACEA was justified in refusing to disclose the names of the staff members in question and closed the case.

The case concerned a refusal by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency to disclose the names of staff members who supervised a project in Macedonia.

The Agency refused access on the basis of EU data protection rules which require that the person asking for disclosure of personal data, such as names of persons, must show the necessity of disclosing the names of the persons in question. If that requirement is met, the public authority must still establish whether the legitimate interests of the staff members would be affected by the disclosure of their names and, if so, whether those legitimate interests were more important than the necessity put forward by the person asking for the disclosure of the names.

The Ombudsman found that the complainant has not explained why it was necessary for him to have access to the names. As such, the Agency was justified in refusing to disclose the names of the staff members at issue.

The European Commission asked an external contractor to do a feasibility study to examine the possibility of setting up a grant scheme for cross-border investigative journalism. The aim of the study was to determine whether there was a need for EU financial support for investigative journalism, and to define possible models of funding. The study did not establish a clear need for EU funding, and the Commission decided not to take any further steps on this matter.

The complainant claimed that the Commission had altered the conclusions of the study initially submitted by the contractor.

The Ombudsman found that the contractor had indeed modified the initial findings of the study. However, this was because the Commission considered that it did not comply with the terms of reference of the contract, and in particular the principle of subsidiarity. There was no evidence to suggest that the modifications were made in order to manipulate the findings of the study.

While the Ombudsman found that the Commission took too long to publish the study and understood the dissatisfaction expressed by the team of journalism experts involved in the study, overall she found the Commission’s explanations to be adequate.