Search inquiries

The complainants are two retail companies, IKEA and Decathlon, which alleged that the European Commission failed to handle appropriately infringement proceedings against Germany concerning planning laws and retail space. The complainants took issue with the time taken for the proceedings, with the initial infringement complaint having been submitted in 2008. They also took issue with the differing explanations given by the Commission for the delay.

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman issued preliminary findings to the Commission, notably that the Commission had taken an unreasonably long time (more than thirteen years) to deal with the initial administrative stages of the infringement procedure. She suggested that the Commission should take a decision on the next stage of the procedure without further delay.

In reply to the Ombudsman's findings, the Commission gave explanations seeking to justify the time taken, and indicated that intended to take a decision in early 2023.

The Ombudsman took the view that the time taken could not be justified. She closed the inquiry with a finding of maladministration. She considered that it would serve no purpose to make a recommendation, as the Commission committed to take a decision in the coming months. The Commission should report back to the Ombudsman by end March 2023.

The case concerned the refusal by the Council of the European Union to disclose in full an opinion of its Legal Service on the nature of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and the EU. The Council argued that full disclosure would harm the EU’s international relations, legal advice and the ongoing decision-making process.

The Ombudsman found that the information contained in the opinion was not sensitive and that the Council’s arguments were not convincing. The Ombudsman therefore proposed as a solution that the Council grant the widest possible access to the opinion.

The Council did not accept this solution proposal. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council’s refusal to grant wide public access to the opinion constituted maladministration and made a corresponding recommendation.

The Council rejected the Ombudsman’s recommendation. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case, confirming her finding of maladministration.

The complainant sought public access to an opinion of the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union on the legal nature of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and the EU.

The Council provided only very limited access to the opinion, arguing that full disclosure would harm its international relations, legal advice and the ongoing decision-making process.

The Ombudsman considered that the information contained in the opinion was not sensitive. She found that the Council had not demonstrated how disclosure would specifically and actually undermine the public interest concerning international relations. She also found that it was unclear how disclosure would undermine the Council’s capacity to obtain frank, objective and comprehensive advice. Rather, the Ombudsman took the view that greater transparency would reinforce the legitimacy of the Agreement.

The Ombudsman proposed as a solution that the Council grant the widest possible access to the opinion of its Legal Service. The Council did not follow this solution proposal.

As the Council did not rebut or address the arguments in the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, the Ombudsman maintains her position. She considers that the Council’s refusal to grant wide public access to the opinion constitutes maladministration and made a corresponding recommendation to address this.

The case concerned a request for access to four documents relating to the ‘EU-China Friendship Group’, an unofficial grouping of MEPs.

The President of the European Parliament had asked Parliament’s Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members to assess whether the chair of the Group had complied with his obligation to declare any support received in relation to the Group’s activity. The four documents were part of the procedure before that Committee.

Parliament refused access to the four documents, referring in essence to the confidentiality of the procedure before the Advisory Committee.

The Ombudsman’s inquiry team examined the four documents and met with the relevant staff of Parliament to obtain further information on its decision to refuse access. The Ombudsman found that Parliament’s decision to refuse access was reasonable, given the relevant case law.

The prospect of public disclosure of documents, such as those at issue in this case, would risk depriving the Advisory Committee of necessary information in the context of its investigations. Moreover, disclosure in this case would result in little or no additional substantive information about the matter being made available. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.