The case concerned how the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) ensured an effective review process for a project proposal rejected for EU funding. The complainant argued that, despite her attempts to get assistance from the relevant IT Helpdesk, the system for making a request for review though the online account did not work, thereby depriving her of the possibility to request a review.

The Ombudsman found that CINEA gave clear information to the complainant about how to request an evaluation review and what to do in case of problems. The complainant did not provide any evidence of the technical problems she had encountered and there was no indication of any technical problem with the online system during the relevant period. The complainant did not reach out to the IT Helpdesk to seek further help, although there was still time to do so.

The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by CINEA.

The complainant was dissatisfied with how the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) had addressed his concerns about lack of transparency in its staff selection procedures. He claimed, among other things, that EFCA did not inform unsuccessful candidates about the outcome of their applications. 

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked EFCA for clarifications on the matter.

In the course of the inquiry, EFCA informed the Ombudsman that it intended to take steps to be able to inform all unsuccessful candidates individually after each stage of a selection procedure. The Ombudsman invited EFCA to inform her within six months of the measures it has put in place to that effect and considered that no further inquiries are justified into this matter at this stage.

The Ombudsman’s inquiry also demonstrated issues with how candidates can submit complaints about selection procedures. In the course of the inquiry, EFCA put in place a functional mailbox for administrative complaints from unsuccessful candidates. The Ombudsman welcomed this step and closed this aspect of the inquiry as settled.

The case concerned a public access to documents request concerning certain information obtained though the CleanSeaNet service, a tool operated by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) to monitor maritime pollution. The complainant, an investigative journalism platform, was interested in the results of verifications of possible oil spills on the sea surface, in particular the data for the year 2019. EMSA argued that the originators of the data, the national authorities of the coastal states, opposed its release. 

The Ombudsman found that under the EU legislation on public access to documents such an objection could not in itself justify refusing access. The Ombudsman noted that EMSA has published similar data in the past and also pointed out that the requested data constituted environmental information which should benefit from greater transparency.

The Ombudsman therefore proposed that EMSA reassess the request with a view to granting public access. EMSA accepted the solution proposal and has now published on its website extensive information on CleanSeaNet detections of possible oil spills and verification results for the whole period between 2015 and 2021.The Ombudsman welcomes EMSA’s positive response to her solution proposal and closed the case.

The case concerned the refusal of the European Commission to grant the complainant public access to documents concerning a Commission audit and an administrative inquiry by the Irish authorities, which prompted the Commission to revoke the Irish control plan for the weighing of fishery products. The Commission argued that the follow-up to the audit was still ongoing and that disclosing the documents would undermine the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits.

The Ombudsman verified that the Irish authorities have not yet implemented the recommendations made by the Commission and, thus, have not yet resolved the shortcomings it identified. This means that the follow-up to the audit is still ongoing. Given that the Commission might open infringement proceedings against Ireland if these shortcomings are not sufficiently addressed, the Ombudsman considered it reasonable for the Commission to rely on a general presumption of non-disclosure. The Ombudsman also found that the complainant’s arguments were not such as to establish that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

In view of this, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission’s refusal to give public access to the documents at issue was justified and closed her inquiry finding no maladministration.

The case concerned the European Commission’s failure to reply in time to a request for public access to documents concerning an audit on an external Italian fleet.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had failed to respect the deadlines set in the EU legislation on public access to documents. She considered that the Commission’s performance in this case fell short of meeting the standards of a modern, citizen-friendly and transparent administration. However, since the Commission adopted a final decision in the course of the inquiry and as the Ombudsman is now examining, from a systemic perspective, the time taken by the Commission to deal with requests for public access to documents, she considered that no further inquiries were justified. She thus closed the inquiry.