The case concerned the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency’s (CINEA) decision to terminate a grant agreement in the area of renewable transport and to recover the full amount of its financial contribution to the project.

The Ombudsman found that CINEA had failed to follow the procedure set out in the grant agreement and that there were indications that CINEA’s decision may not have been entirely fair and proportionate. However, given the complainant´s insolvency and the fact that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has been investigating potential irregularities in the context of the project, CINEA cannot be expected to meaningfully review its decision at this stage. Therefore, the Ombudsman concluded that no further inquiries are justified and closed the case.

The Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement to CINEA to ensure that similar issues do not arise in future cases.

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.