The case concerned the European Commission’s refusal to give partial or wider access to two documents related to a project funded in partnership with UNICEF. In refusing access, the Commission relied on five exceptions set out in EU legislation on access to documents, that is, the need to protect the public interest as regards international relations and the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or a Member State, as well as the protection of its decision-making process, the commercial interest of a third-party and the privacy and integrity of natural persons, including their personal data.

Based on the inspection of the documents at issue, the Ombudsman was not convinced by the Commission’s arguments that partial or wider disclosure would (seriously) undermine the protection of the interests invoked. The Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution asking the Commission to reconsider its position on the request, with a view to it granting the widest possible access to the documents at issue. She also reminded the Commission of its obligation to take decisions within a reasonable time and give reasons for its decisions.

The Commission accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution and provided the complainant with partial and wider access to the documents. The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s positive response to her proposal for a solution, which settled the complaint.  

The complainant worked as an expert for an external EU contractor on an EU-funded project in Tanzania managed by the Delegation of the European Union to Tanzania and the East African Community. The complainant claimed that the contractor breached Tanzanian law by failing to register in Tanzania, preventing him from obtaining a valid work permit. Subsequently, the contractor informed the complainant of its decision to terminate his contract, taking into account concerns about the complainant’s work raised by the EU Delegation.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s concerns about how the Delegation handled both matters. In this regard, the Ombudsman referred to her consistently taken view that, where EU institutions seek the replacement of experts working on EU projects, those individuals should be heard before they are replaced. While the Commission argued that it did not ask for the expert’s replacement, the Ombudsman found that the Commission had been involved in the replacement decision. The Ombudsman thus found that the Commission failed to ensure that the complainant’s right to be heard was respected prior to his replacement, which amounted to maladministration.  She made a suggestion for improvement aimed at preventing the issue from occurring in the future. 

In addition, the Ombudsman found that, as the complainant’s contract had been terminated, no further inquiries were justified into the work permit issue. She nevertheless made a suggestion for improvement to the Commission, inviting it to verify the matter as it may affect other experts working on the EU project.