The case concerned a request for public access to documents in relation to disciplinary proceedings following an investigation and recommendation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to the Commission. The Commission identified 23 documents as falling within the scope of the request and refused access to all documents in their entirety. In doing so, the Commission relied on the need to protect personal data.

When the complainant asked the Commission to review its decision, the Commission confirmed the refused access, invoking a general presumption of confidentiality arising from the protection of the purpose of investigations. The Commission also argued that public access cannot be granted to protect the personal data contained in the documents.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s application of a general presumption of confidentiality, after the disciplinary proceedings in question were closed, was not reasonable. Based on an inspection of the documents at issue, the Ombudsman considered that, while parts of the documents might need to be redacted to prevent the identification of individuals or to protect the purpose of future investigations, the documents do not contain sensitive information throughout. The Ombudsman thus proposed as a solution that the Commission re-consider its position on the access request with a view to providing meaningful partial access to the requested documents.

In reply, the Commission confirmed its reliance on a general presumption of confidentiality and considered that, in any event, meaningful partial access was not possible without disclosing personal data and putting at risk the protection of the purpose of the Commission’s disciplinary investigations.

The Ombudsman regretted that the Commission did not grant partial access following her proposal for a solution. The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s handling of this access request constituted maladministration.

As the Commission had reassessed its position on the complainant’s access request following the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution and had come to the same conclusion as in its confirmatory decision, the Ombudsman saw no useful purpose in continuing this inquiry with a formal recommendation on the matter. She therefore closed the case.

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to refuse public access to final sanction decisions closing disciplinary proceedings against staff members of the Commission. The Commission applied a general presumption of confidentiality to all the documents at issue based on the need to protect the purpose of investigations. The Commission also argued that, in any event, no public access could be granted to the decisions without revealing personal data.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission was not justified in relying on a general presumption of confidentiality based on the need to protect the purpose of investigations to refuse access to the final sanction decisions. The Ombudsman inquiry team therefore inspected the documents in question. Based on the inspection, the Ombudsman considered that, while some of the final sanction decisions might require more extensive redactions than others to prevent the identification of individuals and thus to protect their privacy and integrity, the Commission’s position that no access could be granted was unreasonable. The Ombudsman also considered that the documents included only limited information that would need to be withheld to protect the purpose of investigations.

In view of this, the Ombudsman found that the Commission’s refusal to grant public access to the requested documents in their entirety constituted maladministration.

The Ombudsman already set out her above view in a proposal for a solution in a parallel inquiry concerning public access to similar documents. As the Commission had reassessed its position following this solution proposal and had come to the same conclusion as in its confirmatory decision, the Ombudsman saw no useful purpose in continuing this inquiry by making a formal recommendation on the matter. She therefore closed the case.

The case concerned the refusal by the European Parliament to give public access to documents related to an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into staff misconduct. In refusing access, Parliament relied on two exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure would undermine the privacy and integrity of the persons concerned by the OLAF investigation and its decision-making process.

The Ombudsman found that the complainant had not established a need for disclosure of the personal data in the public interest, as required by the EU legislation on data protection. Parliament had therefore been justified in refusing to disclose any personal data contained in the documents at issue. However, the review of the documents also showed that they do not contain personal data throughout and that certain parts of the documents could be disclosed whilst protecting the privacy and integrity of the persons concerned. Therefore, the Ombudsman proposed that Parliament re-consider its position that access had to be refused to the documents in full.

In reply, Parliament maintained its position that no public access could be granted as it considered that it is not possible to redact all personal data while leaving some meaningful content. The Ombudsman regretted Parliament’s continued refusal of any form of access to the requested documents. Given that Parliament confirmed its position in reply to her solution proposal, the Ombudsman took the view that no purpose would be served by pursuing the matter in the context of this case. The Ombudsman expects, however, that Parliament will take her assessment into account when it deals with future public access requests to similar documents.

The case concerned the refusal by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to give sufficiently wide public access to the OLAF final reports and recommendations related to two investigations into misconduct by EU staff members. In refusing access to parts of those documents, OLAF relied on two exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure would undermine the need to protect the privacy and integrity of the individuals mentioned in the documents, including the persons concerned by the OLAF investigations, as well as the need to protect the commercial interests of the companies and legal persons named in the documents.

The Ombudsman found that the complainant had not established a need for disclosure of the personal data at issue in the public interest, as required by the EU legislation on data protection. Following an inspection of the documents at issue, the Ombudsman also considered the redactions of commercial information to be reasonable and that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure in this regard. The Ombudsman therefore concluded that OLAF’s decision to refuse public access to parts of the documents at issue was justified. Welcoming OLAF’s decision to disclose significant details about the two investigations concerned, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Anti-Fraud Office's (OLAF) decision to refuse public access to final reports and related recommendations in 44 investigations, as well as to a case file in a specific closed disciplinary case. OLAF applied a general presumption of non-disclosure to all documents at issue, meaning that it refused to grant public access to any documents without having conducted any individual assessment.

The Ombudsman found that OLAF was not justified in relying on a general presumption of non-disclosure based on the need to protect the purpose of its investigations, to refuse access to the 37 final reports and recommendations in relation to which the investigations and follow-up activities had been closed. Regarding the final reports and recommendations where OLAF considered that the follow-up activities were still ongoing, the Ombudsman considered that it was not clear whether and, if so, how OLAF assessed that this follow-up period was still reasonable before applying the general presumption of non-disclosure.

Therefore, the Ombudsman proposed as a solution that OLAF (i) carry out an individual assessment of the final reports and recommendations related to those investigations where the follow-up activities have been closed, redacting where necessary personal data, with a view to granting the widest possible public access; and (ii) provide explanations as to why it considers that the reasonable period for completing the follow-up activities had not yet elapsed when applicable.

In reply, OLAF carried out an individual assessment of 41 final reports and recommendations in relation to all investigations where it was confirmed that the follow-up had been closed. OLAF granted partial access to all these documents. OLAF also described how it assesses, in general, whether a reasonable period has passed for the competent authority to decide on the appropriate follow-up to its recommendations.

The Ombudsman concluded that OLAF accepted her proposal for a solution granting wide partial public access to 41 final reports and related recommendations. She also welcomed the clarifications provided regarding ongoing follow-up proceedings. That said, she noted that in the investigations at issue, the follow-up activities had been ongoing for a significantly longer time than what the EU courts have recognised so far as reasonable. She therefore made suggestions for improvements to OLAF in relation to this matter.

Regarding the refused access to the remaining documents in the OLAF investigation file at issue, the Ombudsman was also not convinced that OLAF was entitled to rely on a general presumption of non-disclosure considering that its investigation and follow-up procedure were both closed. After inspecting the documents, the Ombudsman considered also that partial access seemed possible while redacting notably personal data. That said, the Ombudsman noted that the number of documents included in the case file is significant, that the complainant obtained now meaningful partial access to the final report in relation to this investigation and it is not clear whether the remaining documents to which partial access may be possible contain additional information of interest to the complainant. Therefore, the Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries into this aspect of the complaint were justified. She referred in that regard to the suggestion for improvement made to OLAF in a recent inquiry concerning its handling of public access requests to entire case files.

The case concerned the refusal by the European External Action Service (EEAS) to give full public access to documents related to investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into misconduct by EU staff members. In refusing access, the EEAS relied on an exception under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure would undermine the need to protect the privacy and integrity of the individuals mentioned in the documents, including the persons concerned by the OLAF investigations. In addition, the EEAS redacted the names of legal persons mentioned in the documents to protect their reputation.

The Ombudsman found that the complainant had not established a need for disclosure of the personal data in the public interest, as required by the EU legislation on data protection. Following an inspection of the documents at issue, the Ombudsman also considered the limited redactions of commercial information to be reasonable and could not identify any overriding public interest in this regard. The Ombudsman therefore concluded that the EEAS’s decision to refuse full disclosure of the documents at issue was justified. The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

The case concerned a consulting firm that was under investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) for suspected irregularities in EU-funded projects. OLAF informed the firm that it had closed the investigation, and presented financial and administrative recommendations to the Commission. Although OLAF informed the firm that it could turn to the OLAF Controller of procedural guarantees, OLAF failed to provide clear information about the applicable deadline for submitting a complaint. This meant that the firm submitted the complaint after the deadline, and the Controller rejected the complaint.

The Ombudsman found that, by failing to provide the complainant with clear information, notably regarding the closing date of the investigation, OLAF acted with maladministration. However, the Ombudsman considered that there was no appropriate recommendation to be made to address this for the complainant. She nevertheless made a suggestion aimed at preventing such problem occurring in future similar cases.

The case concerned the European Anti-Fraud Office's (OLAF) decision to refuse public access to the contents of its investigation file concerning a closed case and to grant only partial access to the final report from this investigation. OLAF argued that full disclosure of the investigation file and final report would undermine the protection of personal data, the commercial interests of the companies concerned by the investigation, and the effectiveness of OLAF’s future investigations by revealing its methods and strategies. As regards the investigation file, OLAF applied a general presumption of non-disclosure, meaning that it refused to grant public access to the file without having conducted an individual assessment of the documents contained in it.

The Ombudsman took the preliminary view that, according to case law, once OLAF’s investigation and related follow-up activities are closed, the general presumption of non-disclosure can only be applied to OLAF’s internal and preliminary analyses, as opposed to the entire investigation file. OLAF disagreed, arguing that all documents in the investigation file contain sensitive information and, as such, should be covered by the general presumption of non-disclosure.

The Ombudsman therefore proceeded to an inspection of a sample of different categories of documents from the investigation file. Based on the inspection, the Ombudsman found that not all documents from the investigation file appear to be equally sensitive and thus deserving of the application of the general presumption of non-disclosure.

Nonetheless, the Ombudsman found that, based on an individual assessment of the documents in this particular case, OLAF could reasonably argue that the majority of documents from the investigation file could not be disclosed based on the need to protect personal data and sensitive commercial information. Since OLAF had already provided the complainant with meaningful access to its final report, the Ombudsman closed the case finding that no further inquiries were justified.

However, the Ombudsman suggested that OLAF should, in the future, carry out an individual assessment of documents from its the investigation files when applicants request public access to documents contained therein that are clearly not covered by the general presumption of non-disclosure as recognised in the case law. In case of broad requests for public access to the entire investigation file, OLAF should consider asking applicants to specify which documents they seek access to.