Search inquiries
Showing 1 - 20 of 96 results
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) failure to reply to requests for information on how it interprets the restrictions imposed against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine
Thursday | 11 August 2022
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) failure to reply to a query voicing concerns on how the Agency applies restrictions following Russia's invasion of Ukraine
Monday | 20 June 2022
The European Commission's failure to reply to e-mails concerning cabin air quality in commercial transport aircraft
Friday | 17 June 2022
Decision concerning complaint 1023/2022/VS against the European Commission on how it replied to an e-mail concerning a complaint about an airline
Wednesday | 15 June 2022
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) failure to reply to queries voicing concerns on how the Agency applies restrictions following Russia's invasion of Ukraine
Tuesday | 31 May 2022
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency ’s (EASA) failure to reply to an enquiry concerning the updated standards on medical equipment in aircrafts
Monday | 30 May 2022
The European Commission's failure to reply to the complainant’s questions concerning registration of motor vehicles (ongoing infringement matter CHAP(2013)3090 / EU-Pilot 6060/14/ENTR)
Wednesday | 18 May 2022
How the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) failed to acknowledge receipt of a query about its understanding of the restrictions imposed against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine
Tuesday | 26 April 2022
How the European Commission dealt with a request for public access to a letter concerning a report on an investigation into a train accident
Wednesday | 06 April 2022
How the European Union Agency for Railways failed to reply to a query on the availability of a technical annex in German
Thursday | 17 February 2022
The Innovation and Networks Executive Agency's (INEA) refusal to grant full public access to a document related to the Lyon-Turin base tunnel project
Monday | 31 January 2022
Decision on the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency's (INEA) refusal to grant full public access to a document related to the Lyon-Turin base tunnel project (case 465/2021/VB)
Thursday | 27 January 2022
The case concerned the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency’s (INEA) refusal to grant full public access to an amendment to a grant agreement concerning the Lyon-Turin base tunnel project. INEA argued that full disclosure of the document would harm the commercial interests of the entities involved in the project and undermine the privacy and integrity of individuals.
Based on an inspection of the requested document, the Ombudsman considered that there was an overriding public interest in disclosing information related to delays in completing the project. The Ombudsman therefore proposed to the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA), which succeeded and replaced INEA on 1 April 2021, to review its position on the complainant’s request, with a view to granting the widest possible public access.
In its reply, CINEA agreed to grant wider access to the document. It argued, however, that further disclosure would undermine public security. It also noted that the public security exception in the EU’s law on public access to documents is absolute and cannot be overridden by a public interest.
The Ombudsman noted that the Agency had not previously relied on the public security exception and considered the reasoning provided by CINEA to that effect insufficient. She therefore suggested that CINEA provide the complainant with an appropriate statement of reasons supporting the application of the public security exception.
In reply, CINEA agreed to provide additional information to the complainant. The Ombudsman considers the additional information sufficient to ascertain the reason for CINEA’s reliance on the public security exception. In view of this additional information, the Ombudsman also considers it reasonable for CINEA to invoke the public security exception in this case.
As CINEA agreed to follow the Ombudsman’s suggestion, the Ombudsman closed the case with the conclusion that no further inquiries are justified.
The European Commission’s failure to deal in a timely manner with two requests for review of its decisions on public access to documents requests
Monday | 13 December 2021
The European Commission's (Europe Direct) failure to reply to a question concerning training for professional drivers
Friday | 05 November 2021
The European Aviation Safety Agency’s failure to reply to the complainant’s enquiries about aviation safety
Thursday | 04 November 2021
The Council of the EU’s refusal to provide full public access to documents related to trilogue negotiations on motor vehicle emissions
Wednesday | 13 October 2021
Decision on the Council of the EU’s refusal to provide full public access to documents related to trilogue negotiations on motor vehicle emissions (case 360/2021/TE)
Monday | 11 October 2021
The case concerned the Council of the EU’s refusal to grant full public access to documents relating to trilogue negotiations between the Council, the European Parliament, and the European Commission on draft legislation for vehicle emissions. The Council granted access to only parts of the documents it identified as falling under the request, arguing that disclosing the remaining parts could undermine the ongoing decision-making process.
The inspection of the documents by the Ombudsman’s inquiry team showed that the redacted parts contain the Council’s strategy for the negotiations with Parliament. These redacted parts had not been shared with Parliament at the time the Council refused access to the complainant.
The Ombudsman acknowledged that releasing this when the negotiations were ongoing could seriously undermine the Council’s negotiating position. As such, the redactions were justified in that context. However, she took the view that, once compromises on these issues had been reached in the trilogue negotiations, the relevant parts of the documents should be disclosed.
In the course of the inquiry, the Council identified three additional documents that it had shared with Parliament ahead of trilogue meetings. The Ombudsman took the view that they constitute important legislative documents, and that disclosing them would enable the public to properly follow the trilogue negotiations and to try to influence the legislative process at this crucial stage. The Ombudsman thus proposed to the Council that it should disclose these three documents. The Council accepted the proposal.
The complainant expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome, notably as regards the Ombudsman’s assessment upholding the Council’s decision not to disclose certain parts of the documents while the negotiations were ongoing. The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry, confirming her assessment and setting out in greater detail the conclusions she had reached.
Reply from the Council of the European Union to the European Ombudsman solution's proposal in case 360/2021/TE
Thursday | 22 July 2021
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) failure to reply to questions concerning the validity and recognition of pilot licences issued by the United Kingdom after Brexit
Tuesday | 20 July 2021
Decision on the European Commission’s failure to acknowledge receipt of your infringement complaint against the Netherlands
Monday | 12 July 2021