Search inquiries
Showing 1 - 20 of 214 results
The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation's (Europol) failure to deal with two requests for public access to documents
Tuesday | 05 July 2022
How the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) deals with complaints about alleged fundamental rights breaches through its 'Complaints Mechanism'
Wednesday | 08 June 2022
Report on the meeting of the European Ombudsman's inquiry team with FRONTEX representatives
Wednesday | 08 June 2022
Letter from the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) to the European Ombudsman on its action plan in relation to the European Ombudsman’s suggestions
Wednesday | 08 June 2022
The European External Action Service's refusal of public access to documents concerning the EU's Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories
Wednesday | 09 March 2022
Decision in the case 327/2022/OAM on how the European Commission handled a complaint concerning corruption in the Romanian judiciary and government
Wednesday | 09 March 2022
Decision on the European External Action Service's refusal to grant public access to documents concerning the EU's Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (case 2051/2021/MIG)
Monday | 07 March 2022
The case concerned a request for public access to documents relating to a civilian EU mission in the Palestinian Territories. The EEAS identified six documents as falling under the scope of the complainant’s access request and refused access. In doing so, it invoked exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosing the documents could undermine the public interest as regards public security and international relations.
The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue and obtained additional, confidential explanations from the EEAS. Based on this and considering the wide margin of discretion that EU institutions enjoy where they consider that public security and international relations are at risk, the Ombudsman found that the EEAS’s decision to refuse access was not manifestly wrong. Given that the public interest at stake cannot be superseded by another public interest that is deemed more important, the Ombudsman therefore closed the case finding no maladministration.
Report on the inspection and meeting of the European Ombudsman inquiry team with the European External Action Service’s representatives
Wednesday | 16 February 2022
Decision on how the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) handled a request for public access to documents containing information on Europe’s most wanted fugitives list (case 160/2022/OAM)
Tuesday | 15 February 2022
The European Commission’s failure to reply to correspondence concerning mediation in the insurance sector
Wednesday | 12 January 2022
The European Commission's failure to reply to a letter concerning the justice system in Latvia
Thursday | 09 December 2021
Letter from the European Ombudsman to the European External Action Service on its refusal of public access to documents concerning the EU’s Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories
Thursday | 25 November 2021
The European External Action Service's refusal of public access to documents concerning the EU's Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories
Thursday | 25 November 2021
The European Commission's failure to reply to an infringement complaint against the Netherlands concerning child custody
Friday | 22 October 2021
Decision on the European Commission’s decision to recover grants paid under EU funded projects carried out by a national police authority (case 1733/2020/LM)
Monday | 11 October 2021
The complainant, a national police force, received two grants from the European Commission for projects to fight transnational crime, which it carried out successfully. Following audits of the projects, the Commission found that a big part of the costs were ineligible mainly due to the lack of supporting documents. The Commission therefore decided to recover a considerable part of the grants. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman arguing that the decision was disproportionate and that the Commission had not shown flexibility. The complainant considered that the Commission should have allowed it more time to send additional supporting documents and that it should have done another audit.
The Ombudsman found that it was reasonable for the Commission to conclude that the complainant had violated its contractual obligations under the ‘grant agreement’. The Commission had acted in accordance with EU financial rules and given the complainant ample opportunity to provide comments and submit additional supporting documents as proof of the costs it claimed. The Commission had also shown flexibility by agreeing to review supporting documents submitted late. The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.
The European Commission's failure to reply to a letter concerning a breach of EU law in Portugal
Friday | 01 October 2021
The European Commission’s failure to reply to correspondence concerning the rule of law in Germany and a project for EU funding
Tuesday | 28 September 2021
The European Commission’s failure to reply to correspondence concerning the independence of the judges of the Belgian constitutional court
Friday | 27 August 2021
Decision on how the European Commission assessed a complaint on an alleged infringement by Spanish judicial authorities of the complainant's judicial rights (case 1144/2121/OAM)
Thursday | 08 July 2021
Decision of the European Ombudsman concerning complaint 1140/2021/OAM against the European Commission
Thursday | 08 July 2021