The case concerned the refusal of the European Investment Bank (EIB) to give full public access to documents in relation to investigations and recommendations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The EIB identified numerous documents as falling within the scope of the complainant’s request, including OLAF final reports and recommendations, as well as the EIB’s own disciplinary decisions. While the EIB gave partial access to ten of the 13 identified final OLAF reports, it refused access to the remaining documents in their entirety. Concerning the EIB’s disciplinary decisions the EIB provided a summary of the disciplinary follow-up actions taken. In doing so, the EIB relied on exceptions to public access in its transparency rules, arguing that full disclosure would undermine the protection of personal data, the purpose of investigations and its decision-making process.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry, and her inquiry team inspected the documents at issue in the complainant’s public access request. The inspection showed that a significant amount of the information contained in those documents constituted personal data, which, if disclosed, could make the individual EIB staff members investigated by OLAF identifiable. Given the delicate balancing exercise required to determine whether disclosure could lead to the identification of individuals and considering that the EIB had provided the complainant with an overview of the follow-up actions taken and the sanctions imposed, the Ombudsman considered that the EIB’s refusal to give full public access was overall reasonable. She therefore closed the case finding no maladministration. That said, while a significant amount of the information contained in the withheld documents clearly constitutes personal data, the Ombudsman noted that an amount of the information, even if limited, was administrative in nature and did not constitute personal data. She thus made a suggestion for improvement that the EIB consider whether at least some parts of its disciplinary decisions containing purely administrative information could be disclosed without risking the disclosure of personal data.

The case concerned the European Central Bank's (ECB) handling of procedural aspects related to a whistleblower report that the complainant[1] submitted in 2022. The whistleblower report concerned an alleged family relationship between a hiring officer and the person who was hired.

The complainant experienced behaviour by the alleged wrongdoers that they believed amounted to inappropriate behaviour (including harassment). The complainant requested a related administrative investigation.

The ECB decided to assess the whistleblower report jointly with the issue of the alleged inappropriate behaviour. It also informed the complainant that the evidence submitted did not warrant the opening of an administrative investigation. The complainant contested both points through an administrative complaint, which the ECB declared inadmissible for lack of individual interest (the joint handling of the two issues) or for lack of any challengeable decision (the failure to open an administrative investigation).

The complainant turned to the Ombudsman, contesting the ECB's decision of inadmissibility. In the course of the Ombudsman's inquiry, the complainant also asked the Ombudsman to look more closely into the handling of whistleblower reports and complaints at the ECB.

The Ombudsman found that the reasons given by the ECB for declaring the complainant's administrative complaint inadmissible were not convincing.

The Ombudsman also noted that, during her inquiry, significant developments in the matter had occurred and that related high-level internal investigations were still ongoing. Moreover, the ECB was finalising an own-initiative review of its reporting, investigation and disciplinary framework. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman concluded that no further inquiries were justified at that point in time, and closed the inquiry.

 

[1] For reasons of anonymity, including as regards the gender of the complainant, the text refers to the complainant as ‘they’/’their’/’them’.

 

The case concerned how the European External Action Service (EEAS) dealt with a subcontractor that provided expertise and services in the IT sector. According to the complainant, it was not paid in full for the work it had carried out. After the complainant’s negotiations with the main contractor remained fruitless, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman, taking issue with how the EEAS handled the dispute in question.

The Ombudsman recalled that the absence of a direct contractual relationship between an EU institution and a subcontractor does not exempt the former, acting in its capacity as a public authority, from its obligation to respect the subcontractor's fundamental right to good administration. This obligation encompasses, amongst other things, the duty of the EU institution to monitor the behaviour of its contractor and, if necessary, to insist that the contractor fulfils its obligations towards the subcontractor. In the case at hand, the Ombudsman noted that the EEAS had made sure that its requirements on deliverables and documentation were diligently communicated by the main contractor to the subcontractor and that the EEAS had made payments for the validated work carried out. Overall, the EEAS had undertaken multiple efforts to find a solution for the different subcontracting issues.

The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by the EEAS.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dealt with requests for review from a candidate who was unsuccessful in two selection procedures. Amongst other things, the complainant contended that EPSO had not addressed adequately his concerns, and questioned whether it had adequately reviewed his performance.

After the Ombudsman opened the inquiry, EPSO provided additional replies to the complainant. The Ombudsman found that there were inconsistencies between these and the replies he initially received, and that it was not clear whether EPSO actually reviewed its initial decisions. In the course of the inquiry, EPSO provided further clarifications to explain this.

The Ombudsman closed the case finding that no further inquiries are justified, as EPSO ultimately provided reasonable explanations about how it handled the complainant’s requests for review. However, the inquiry revealed issues with EPSO’s standard replies to requests for review. To address these, the Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement to EPSO, asking it to ensure that, in future, candidates who have filed a request for review, receive a clear, accurate and complete reply that informs them whether a review has taken place and about the reasons for EPSO’s decision.

 

The case concerned the refusal by the European Parliament to give public access to documents related to two investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into staff misconduct. In refusing access, Parliament relied on four exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure would undermine the privacy and integrity of the persons concerned by the OLAF investigations, the purpose of these investigations, ongoing court proceedings, and its decision-making process.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue and, based on the inspection, the Ombudsman considered that, as regards the documents related to one of the investigations, it was reasonable for Parliament to apply the general presumption of non-disclosure that EU institutions can rely on while OLAF investigations are ongoing and for as long as a reasonable time for follow-up activities by authorities implementing OLAF’s recommendations has not elapsed. 

Given the specific circumstances of the two OLAF investigations at issue, the Ombudsman also found that Parliament had been justified in considering that redacting the documents would not leave any substantive content as they contain a considerable amount of personal data. Since the complainant had not established a need for disclosure of the personal data for a specific purpose in the public interest, as required by the EU legislation on data protection, the Ombudsman found no maladministration and closed the case.

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) terminated the contract of an external expert following allegations of unprofessional conduct towards interpreters during an asylum support mission. The complainant argued that the decision lacked sufficient reasoning, that he had not been properly informed of the substance of the allegations, that his rights of defence had not been respected, and that the measures taken were disproportionate. The EUAA maintained that the termination of the contract was based on multiple credible reports of misconduct, that the complainant had been informed of the concerns through meetings and other communications, and that confidentiality considerations limited the disclosure of certain details.

The Ombudsman found that, although the termination letter itself did not clearly and sufficiently set out the factual and legal reasoning underpinning the decision, the broader context showed that the EUAA had engaged with the complainant on several occasions prior to the termination of his contract. The Ombudsman considered that the complainant had been made aware of the nature of the concerns and had been given opportunities to respond. The EUAA had also attempted to address the situation through less severe measures before proceeding to termination. While it would have been more in line with good administrative practice for the EUAA to keep more structured records and provide more detailed reasoning in the termination letter, the Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error of assessment or a procedural shortcoming sufficiently serious to amount to maladministration.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration in the EUAA’s handling of the decision to terminate the complainant’s contract.