Search inquiries

The case concerned a request for access to a public call for tenders for an EU funded project that was investigated by the European Anti-Fraud Office. OLAF had argued that providing the complainant with the call (which is already in the public domain) would damage its decision-making process and the purpose of its investigations because it would allow the complainant to identify the project in question and therefore the subject matter of the investigation. The Ombudsman´s inquiries team asked OLAF to clarify how its decision making process and the purpose of its investigations could be damaged when the call was public and the investigation was closed in 2019.

Taking into account the arguments put forward by OLAF in its reply to the Ombudsman´s inquiries team, the Ombudsman agreed that the disclosure of the call would undermine OLAF´s decision-making process and the purpose of its investigations. Therefore, the inquiry was closed with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned how the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) handled a request by a journalist for public access to documents about an OLAF investigation into a tobacco product manufacturer and its possible links to a family member of the Syrian President.

OLAF invoked the general presumption that public access to the requested documents would be particularly detrimental to its ability to fulfil its mission to fight fraud in the public interest. OLAF therefore concluded, without assessing each document individually, that access to the documents could not be granted.

The Ombudsman found that OLAF had correctly applied the EU rules on public access to documents. After reviewing the final OLAF report in this case, the Ombudsman found that only one short section was relevant to the complainant’s request.  

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding that there had not been maladministration by OLAF. She nevertheless suggested to OLAF that it assess the relevant section of the report and consider granting public access to it.

The case was about a project developed by a local organisation and co-financed by the EU in Africa.

The complainant raised concerns with the Commission about the local organisation. The Commission then contracted an auditor, who made a number of recommendations to improve the organisation’s governance. The complainant then turned to the Ombudsman alleging that the Commission had failed to ensure that the organisation implemented the auditor’s recommendations.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had in fact followed up on how the organisation implemented the recommendations and that there was no maladministration. She invited the Commission to update the complainant on the implementation of the recommendations.

The case concerned the Commission’s refusal to grant public access to an opinion of the legal service related to an alleged conflict of interest of the Czech prime minister.

The complainant considered that there was an overriding public interest in disclosure. In his view, citizens need to be aware of the content of the legal opinion, so that they can form their own independent view of the actions of the parties involved and the credibility of the arguments put forward.

The Ombudsman found that, at this stage, the public interest in disclosing the legal opinion is does not override the public interest in protecting the Commission’s ability to conduct audits aimed at ensuring that EU funds are protected and that the rule of law is respected. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned a request for public access to a letter of the European Commission to the Czech authorities concerning audits in relation to potential conflicts of interest in Czechia. The Commission refused to make public the letter arguing that disclosure would put the successful completion of the audits at risk.

The Ombudsman considered that the Commission should give partial access to the letter, thus reassuring and confirming to the public that it was taking appropriate action regarding the protection of EU funds.

The Commission accepted this solution and granted the complainant access to those paragraphs of the letter which the Ombudsman considered could be released. The Ombudsman finds that, by doing so, the Commission resolved the complaint. She therefore closed her inquiry.

The case concerned the time it was taking the European Investment Bank (EIB) to investigate a complaint about irregularities in a project called “Castilla y León Climate Change”, which the Bank financed.

In the course of the inquiry, the EIB informed the Ombudsman that it had concluded the investigation.

The Ombudsman finds that the time it took the EIB to investigate the matter was reasonable considering the complexity of the issue. Thus, the Ombudsman closes the inquiry finding that there was no maladministration.