The case concerned how the European Commission ensures that Romania fully implements a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unlawful refusal to issue identity cards to Romanian citizens domiciled in other Member States.

The Ombudsman found that the matter appeared to be evolving at national level and that the Commission had been monitoring the situation actively and at reasonable intervals.

The Ombudsman closed the case with the conclusion that no further inquiries are justified at this stage. However, the Ombudsman requested the Commission to update her, within six months, on its assessment of Romania’s compliance with the judgment and any further action taken by the Commission.

The complainant asked the European Commission for public access to documents concerning its exchanges with the Hungarian government on judicial independence in the context of the Commission's assessment of Hungary's eligibility for cohesion funds. After consulting with the Hungarian authorities, the Commission refused access to some of the documents, invoking two exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents. More specifically, the Commission argued that disclosure would undermine the purpose of its investigation as regards Hungary’s eligibility for cohesion funds and its decision-making process. The complainant asked the Commission to review its decision (by making a ‘confirmatory application’). When the Commission did not reply within the applicable time limits, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s implicit refusal to grant public access to the requested documents. During the Ombudsman's inquiry, the Commission adopted its confirmatory decision. It maintained its decision to withhold access but invoked an additional exception, arguing that the European Parliament had initiated court proceedings concerning the matter in the meantime, and disclosure could undermine these ongoing proceedings.

The Ombudsman’s inspection showed that the requested documents contain Hungary’s self-assessment, formal questionnaires sent by the Commission to the Hungarian authorities, and the official replies from the relevant Hungarian authorities to those questions. The requested documents thus form the basis of the Commission’s decision against which Parliament initiated court proceedings. They were neither drawn up for the purpose of the specific court proceedings, nor do they contain internal legal positions on contentious issues throughout.

The Ombudsman took the view that the Commission had not sufficiently demonstrated how disclosing the documents could undermine the court proceedings in question. The Ombudsman was also not convinced by the Commission’s argument that disclosure could undermine its investigation. In addition, the Ombudsman stressed the importance of informing the public of the Commission and the Hungarian authorities’ actions to protect the financial interests of the EU and to ensure that the rule of law is respected. Therefore, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s refusal to grant wide public access to the requested documents constituted maladministration and recommended that the Commission reconsider its position on the access request.

In reply, the Commission confirmed its position that disclosure of the requested documents would undermine the serenity of the court proceedings brought by Parliament and its investigation as regards Hungary’s eligibility for cohesion funds. However, the Ombudsman found that the Commission did not provide convincing explanations as to why no wider access could be given to these documents. Therefore, the Ombudsman confirmed her finding of maladministration and closed the case.

The case concerned a request for public access to the reasoned opinion that the European Commission sent to Belgium in the context of an infringement procedure regarding its transposition of the Whistleblower Protection Directive.

The Commission refused access to the document, which forms part of the file for an ongoing infringement procedure. In doing this, the Commission relied on a general presumption of non-disclosure, based on the need to protect the purpose of an ongoing investigation. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

While the Ombudsman considered that adequate protection of whistleblowers is essential, she found, based on the inspection of the document at issue, that the Commission was justified in relying on the general presumption of non-disclosure to refuse access to the document. She therefore closed the case.