The case concerned how the European Commission dealt with the request by a journalist working at a news agency to be added to a mailing list for embargoed press releases, specifically for Eurostat’s ‘Euro indicators’, which provide regular economic statistical information. Eurostat, which is part of the Commission, refused to add the journalist to the list because it stated only journalists or agencies who had been granted media ‘accreditation’ by the Commission could be included on such distribution lists. It was not possible for the journalist or his news agency to receive accreditation, because they did not meet one of the preconditions, namely that the agency or a journalist at the agency is domiciled in Belgium. The complainant contended that this practice was discriminatory and meant that only larger media organisations with sufficient financial resources that could afford to have journalists in Belgium could receive embargoed information.

The Ombudsman found that it was reasonable for the Commission to include domicile in Belgium as a precondition for accreditation when it comes to accessing the physical buildings of the EU institutions in Brussels. However, she found that including a domicile requirement in Belgium as a precondition for inclusion on distribution lists for members of the media was disproportionate.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of maladministration, and asked the Commission to report back within six months to inform her of the action it had taken to address the situation.

The complainant sought public access from the European Commission to documents containing statistical data, reported by the Spanish authorities, on active substances in pesticides. The Commission granted access to only parts of the four documents it identified as falling under the request. It refused access to the rest, invoking exceptions under the EU's rules on public access to documents, and arguing that disclosing the redacted parts would undermine the commercial interests of companies from which the data was collected. The Commission also argued that the data was covered by the principle of confidentiality set out in the EU rules on statistic gathering.

Based on an inspection of the documents in question, the Ombudsman considered that the redacted information related to substances intended to be released into the environment. According to the EU rules on access to environmental information (the Aarhus Regulation) and related case-law, there is an overriding public interest in disclosing such information.

The Ombudsman questioned the Commission’s position that the principle of statistical confidentiality prevails over the transparency of information relating to emissions into the environment. She was not convinced the Commission had given full effect to the rules set out in the Aarhus Regulation. However, the Ombudsman took the view that these issues would be best addressed by the EU legislators which are currently revising the applicable legislation and therefore closed the inquiry, committing to bring the matter to their attention.