The case concerned a decision of the European Commission, which granted Spain a derogation from a rule in the Energy Directive. The rule provides that transmission system operators may not own energy storage facilities. The decision grants a derogation from that rule as concerns pumped hydropower storage facilities in the Canary Islands. The complaint to the Ombudsman was that the Commission had interpreted the rule wrongly and that, in any case, the conditions for granting the derogation were not fulfilled.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that while the complaint was not without merits, the Commission’s actions did not amount to maladministration. However, the Ombudsman suggested the Commission should remind its services of the importance of engaging substantively and in sufficient detail with citizens who bring well-argued and detailed concerns to its attention.

The case concerned the European Commission’s refusal to grant public access to an application for a mineral extraction and processing project to be recognised as a ‘Strategic Project’ under the Critical Raw Materials Act and the Commission’s related assessment. The Commission considered that disclosure would undermine the commercial interests of the company concerned, including because the project had not been designated as a Strategic Project. Amongst other elements, the complainant contended that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure, arguing that the documents at issue are likely to contain important environmental information.

Based on the inspection of the documents at issue by her inquiry team, the Ombudsman found that it had been reasonable for the Commission to consider that disclosure would undermine the commercial interests of the company concerned. In addition, while the documents contain some information about the anticipated environmental and social impacts of the project, this was not sufficient to establish an overriding public interest in disclosure.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry finding no maladministration in the Commission’s refusal of access.

The case concerned the composition of one of the European Commission’s expert groups, the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group. Because membership of this group is reserved to industry representatives, the complainants, two non-governmental organisations, were concerned that its composition was unbalanced. They argued that this situation provided fossil fuel companies with privileged access to EU energy policymakers.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission provided a reasonable explanation for the specific composition of the group at the time of its creation, namely, that it needed specialised input from industry stakeholders on an IT tool developed for their exclusive use. However, this IT tool has now been in use for more than a year and its design seems to have stabilised. In light of this and of the Industry Advisory Group’s broader mandate, the Ombudsman urged the Commission to reflect on the adequacy of the group’s composition. This is especially so considering that some of the elements discussed in the group are now a permanent feature of the EU energy framework. She made a suggestion for improvement to address this. The Ombudsman was also not convinced by the explanations provided by the Commission as regards the exclusion of civil society from observer status. She made a second suggestion for improvement to address this.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry, asking the Commission to report back on the actions it has taken following her suggestions for improvement.  

The case concerned a public access to documents request concerning the activities and members of the EU-U.S. Task Force on Energy Security. The aim of the Task Force is to diversify Europe’s energy supply and to reduce its overall energy demand. To this end, the Task Force holds meetings and engages with various stakeholders, including the private sector.

The European Commission refused to disclose the names of the companies participating in meetings of the Task Force. In doing so, it invoked exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure could undermine the protection of commercial interests and international relations.

The Ombudsman reviewed the documents at issue and found that it was not clear how the disclosure of the companies’ names would specifically and actually undermine these interests.

The Ombudsman therefore proposed that the Commission re-assess its position with a view to giving significantly increased public access. The Commission accepted the solution proposal and fully disclosed the documents. The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s positive response to her solution proposal and closed the case.