The case concerned a request for public access to the opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on the Commission’s draft impact assessment report regarding its legislative initiative on Multimodal Digital Mobility Services (MDMS) from September 2023. The Commission refused access to the document in its entirety, arguing that disclosure would undermine its ongoing decision-making process.

Following the inspection of the requested document by her inquiry team, the Ombudsman was not convinced that its disclosure would have seriously affected, prolonged or complicated the completion of the impact assessment and the adoption of the Commission’s legislative proposals. Given the clear case-law that requires EU institutions to apply a particularly high standard of transparency to legislative documents, the Ombudsman took the view that the Commission’s reasoning was insufficient and that it was not justified in applying the exception for the protection of its ongoing decision-making. Therefore, she considered that the Commission’s refusal to grant public access to the document, even in part, constituted maladministration.

In the meantime, the Commission published its legislative proposals in relation to the ‘Passenger Package’, accompanied by a Staff Working Document containing the revised impact assessment. The Staff Working Document reproduces the content of the September 2023 RSB opinion and includes an overview of how the Commission has given effect to the RSB’s observations. Given that the content of the RSB opinion in question is now public and that the Commission published its legislative proposals, the Ombudsman considered that making a recommendation to the Commission would not serve a useful purpose and she closed the case.

The case concerned how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint against the Netherlands, regarding Dutch legislation on light electric vehicles. The complainant was concerned that he had not had any update from the Commission in over two years.

While the inquiry was ongoing, the Commission closed the case. However, the Ombudsman found that the Commission failed to demonstrate that it had handled the case actively and diligently. In particular, the Commission failed to provide a convincing justification for the delay in dealing with a case which, considering the reasons given to close the case, should have been clear from the outset. The Ombudsman considered that this constituted maladministration. However, as the Commission has since then acknowledged and apologised for the delay when closing the case, and has in parallel committed to improving its communication with complainants, the Ombudsman considered that no purpose would be served by making a recommendation.