The complainant, an NGO, sought public access to documents concerning a contract on the assessment of the EU’s role and intervention in the reform of the child protection system in Romania and the “lessons learnt”. The Commission identified three documents as falling within the scope of the complainant’s public access request and granted partial access to all three documents. The complainant considered that the Commission did not identify all relevant documents. In particular, the complainant argued that the Commission failed to identify the final report, which the complainant was in possession of, and which was also referenced in a published book.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s alleged failure to identify all relevant documents and asked the Commission to provide additional explanations as to why the final report had not been identified. In its reply to the Ombudsman, the Commission shared its understanding that the final report had been destroyed in line with its Common Retention List that states that files concerning the EU’s funding activities have a retention period of ten years.

The Ombudsman found the additional explanations that the Commission provided reasonable and, noting that it had taken the Commission almost a year to issue the confirmatory decision, closed the case finding that no further inquiries are justified. However, she suggested that the Commission provide such explanations in its replies to public access requests at an early stage rather than limiting its replies to explaining where it searched.

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.