You have a complaint against an EU institution or body?
Search inquiries
Showing 1 - 20 of 564 results
Décision du Parlement européen d'organiser des sessions plénières à Bruxelles uniquement en raison de la pandémie de COVID-19
Thursday | 06 May 2021
Décision du Médiateur européen sur la décision du Parlement européen d’organiser des sessions plénières à Bruxelles en raison de la pandémie de COVID-19
Thursday | 06 May 2021
The European Commission’s failure to handle a public access to documents request for the results of the Altiero Spinelli Prize for Outreach
Friday | 16 April 2021
Transparency of decision making in the Council of the EU during the COVID-19 crisis
Friday | 26 March 2021
Decision in strategic inquiry OI/4/2020/TE on the transparency of decision making by the Council of the EU during the COVID-19 crisis
Wednesday | 24 March 2021
The Ombudsman opened a ‘strategic inquiry’ on her own initiative to look into the transparency of decision making by the Council of the EU during the COVID-19 crisis. The Treaties require the EU institutions, including the Council, to operate openly. In particular, they require the Council to meet in public when considering and voting on draft legislative acts.
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges of restrictions on travel and gatherings, the Council had to adapt its operating and decision-making procedures to ensure institutional continuity. To this end, the Council decided to derogate temporarily from its Rules of Procedure. In addition to organising virtual meetings and other changes, the Council currently takes most decisions by ‘written procedure’.
The Ombudsman assessed how, in the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 crisis, the Council ensured it complied with its obligations to operate openly.
The Ombudsman found that national ministers meet by videoconference to discuss the legislative and non-legislative files that are subsequently adopted by written procedure. At the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, these remote meetings were not held in public, and very little information about them was made public. This was regrettable. As of July 2020, however, the Council changed its practices. It began web streaming certain remote meetings of ministers, and made public relevant documentation. The Ombudsman welcomes this important change. She suggests that the Council make public documentation regarding all ministerial videoconferences that took place at the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, between March and June 2020.
The Ombudsman also found that, at the outset of her inquiry, there was no information publicly available on how, in the absence of in-person meetings, the Council’s preparatory bodies continued their discussions on legislative and non-legislative files. As the COVID-19 crisis continued, the Council took steps to make these remote meetings of national civil servants more transparent, notably by publishing agendas ahead of such meetings. The Ombudsman welcomes the steps taken. She considers, however, that more could be done and is making three further suggestions for improvement to that effect.
How the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) deals with requests for public access to documents
Monday | 15 February 2021
The Delegation of the European Union’s (DEU Mali) alleged failure to approve in a timely manner a final report from a company under a framework contract (EuropeAid/132633/C/SER/Multi)
Tuesday | 02 February 2021
Decision in case 1094/2020/DL on how the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations (APPF) ensures transparency of information about European political parties and foundations
Monday | 25 January 2021
The case concerned how the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations (APPF) complies with its transparency requirements and - in particular - its disclosure and publication obligations. The complainant considered that the APPF failed to publish information concerning European political parties and foundations in a complete, up to date and user-friendly manner.
In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the APPF committed to making changes to address some of the issues raised in the complaint, such as including links to the relevant information on the European Parliament’s website, inserting sections on its website to address missing information and drawing up a template to obtain information from European political parties in a harmonised manner. The Ombudsman thus decided to close the case, as no further inquiries were justified.
However, the Ombudsman considered that the APPF could make additional improvements to its website to ensure that the information provided is clear, complete, extractable and comparable. She therefore made three suggestions for improvement and has asked the APPF to report back within six months.
Decision in case 593/2020/MMO on how the European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency dealt with an administrative complaint from a staff member who had not been promoted
Friday | 18 December 2020
The European Commission's (PMO) failure to reply to a letter from a lawyer concerning the garnishment of a former EU staff member’s pension
Tuesday | 01 December 2020
Commission and failure to reply to a query about sanctions against civil servants
Friday | 20 November 2020
The European Commission's failure to reply to e-mails concerning the preliminary ruling procedure before the courts
Wednesday | 18 November 2020
The European Commission’s failure to keep the complainant informed on the state of play of an infringement complaint against the United Kingdom
Tuesday | 17 November 2020
The European Commission’s failure to provide a timely reply to a request for access to documents concerning an infringement procedure against Spain
Thursday | 29 October 2020
Reply of the Council of the EU to the Ombudsman's inspection request in case OI/4/2020/TE concerning the transparency of Council decision making during the COVID-19 crisis
Wednesday | 28 October 2020
Reply from the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations (APPF) to the European Ombudsman's inquiry into the APPF's alleged failure to comply with transparency obligations
Monday | 05 October 2020
How the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) deals with requests for public access to documents
Thursday | 01 October 2020
Letter from the European Ombudsman to the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) on how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) deals with requests for public access to documents
Thursday | 01 October 2020
Decision in case 652/2020/MIG on the European Commission’s refusal of public access to correspondence with the United Kingdom government concerning the nomination of a candidate for commissioner
Monday | 28 September 2020
The case concerned a request for public access to four letters which the European Commission had exchanged with the United Kingdom (UK) government, concerning the UK’s failure to nominate a candidate for commissioner following the European elections. The Commission refused access on the grounds that there was an ongoing infringement procedure against the UK concerning the matter.
The Ombudsman proposed as a solution that the Commission grant access to the documents at issue, given the changed situation, since the UK has left the EU. The Commission accepted the Ombudsman's proposal and the case was closed as resolved.
Reply to the proposal of the European Ombudsman for a solution in case 652/2020/MIG on the European Commission’s refusal of public access to correspondence with the United Kingdom government concerning the nomination of a candidate for Commissioner
Saturday | 19 September 2020