Search inquiries

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.

The case concerned the failure of the European Commission and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to provide the complainant with information regarding a “review process and legal consultation” in the context of the MEDIA programme that was referred to in a document attached by EACEA in its correspondence with the complainant.