The case concerned a request for public access to documents related to the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes between the EU Member States and non-EU countries. The Council provided links to ten documents already in the public domain and granted full access to four further documents. In addition, it refused to give public access to ten documents, in full or in part, relying on the need to protect the public interest as regards international relations and the EU Member States’ financial policy. The Council also considered that disclosure would undermine its decision-making. The complainants challenged the use of those exceptions and argued that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

Based on the inquiry and the inspection of the documents at issue by her inquiry team, the Ombudsman found that it had not been manifestly wrong for the Council to consider that disclosure of the (redacted parts of) the documents at issue would undermine the Member States’ international relations and/or their financial policy.

Given that those protected public interests cannot be set aside by another public interest that is deemed more important, it was not necessary to consider the Council’s application of the decision-making process exception. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

This inquiry concerned the European Commission’s compliance with the provisions on tobacco lobbying, as set out in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) of the World Health Organization. In particular, the Ombudsman assessed how the Commission ensures the transparency of its interactions with the tobacco industry.

The Ombudsman’s previous work had demonstrated how the Commission’s Directorates-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) and Taxation (DG TAXUD) comply with the obligations in this area. This inquiry sought to assess how the Commission complies with its obligations across all departments and concerning all Commission staff members.

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman shared with the Commission her preliminary findings. She signalled that the Commission’s failure to take a consistent approach across all its departments to complying with its obligations concerning the transparency of interactions with tobacco industry representatives constitutes maladministration. This included the failure to keep and make available minutes of meetings with tobacco interest representatives, as well as the failure to ensure a systemic assessment, across all directorates-general, as to whether potential meetings with tobacco industry representatives are needed.

In its reply, the Commission restated its standard approach to lobbying transparency and referred to the additional measures taken by DG SANTE and DG TAXUD, which existed prior to the Ombudsman’s inquiry. The Ombudsman therefore upheld her finding that the failure by the Commission to ensure a comprehensive approach across all its departments to transparency of meetings with representatives of the tobacco industry constitutes maladministration.

The Commission added, however, that it will instruct its management to conduct an assessment of the risk of exposure to the tobacco industry. The Ombudsman welcomed this commitment as a sign that things might improve in the future. The Ombudsman will write to the Commission, at the start of 2024, with the points she urges it to communicate to its directors-general, heads of service, and heads of cabinets as they conduct this assessment. The Ombudsman will also ask the Commission to report back by 30 June 2024 on the outcome of the assessment and the progress made on that basis.

The case concerned the Commission’s refusal to give public access to documents related to an EU Pilot procedure concerning an alleged infringement by Spain of the Energy Taxation Directive.

The documents in question were four letters from the Spanish authorities, containing their legal assessment of the compatibility of the national legislative framework with the Directive. Spain objected to the disclosure of the letters, arguing that they related to ongoing court proceedings at national level which could be harmed by disclosure. Based on this, the Commission invoked the exception for the protection of court proceedings and refused access to the four letters.

Having reviewed the documents in question, the Ombudsman found that the decision to refuse access was in line with EU case-law. The Ombudsman thus concluded that there was no maladministration and closed the inquiry.

The complainant in this case contended that the European Commission had not fully examined an infringement complaint concerning Danish rules on temporary use of cars from other EU Member States. The complainant suspected that the Danish rules in this area are to some extent intended to minimise the temporary use of cars registered in other Member States, with a view to increasing revenues from the registration of imported cars.

The Ombudsman found that the issue raised by the complainant warranted further attention, and that certain specific points had not been fully addressed by the Commission. She therefore proposed as a solution that the Commission register and examine the infringement complaint anew. The Commission accepted her proposal and the Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry.

The complainant sought public access to documents concerning the ongoing negotiations by the Council on the legislative proposal concerning the taxation of digital services. The Council identified 53 documents as falling within the scope of the complainant´s request. It gave full access to 24 documents, refused access to 10 documents in their entirety and granted partial access to the rest. The Council argued that the refusal to disclose these documents was justified by the need to protect international relations, the financial, monetary and economic policy of the EU or Member States, and its own decision-making process.

The complainant was dissatisfied with the Council´s decision to refuse access to 10 documents in their entirety and turned to the Ombudsman.

After inspecting the documents, and following the additional explanations provided by the Council in reply to her questions, the Ombudsman is of the view that the Council´s decision to deny public access to the documents was justified at the time. The Ombudsman, however, welcomes the Council´s decision, taken in the course of her inquiry, to grant public access to five of the ten requested documents.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry.