The complainant, an interest representative from France, raised concerns about the ‘accreditation’ system used by the European Parliament to facilitate access to its premises. In particular, he considered the process confusing and took issue with the fact that some of the guidance documents are available in English only.

In the context of the inquiry, the Parliament committed to making the documentation in question available in French and German, and also explained how it assists those that apply for accreditation.

The Ombudsman welcomed this and closed the inquiry concluding that no further inquiries were justified.

Following revelations that a (former) director-general at the European Commission travelled to Qatar and received related hospitality at the expense of third parties, giving rise to conflict of interest concerns, the Ombudsman first wrote to the Commission in March 2023. She asked to obtain information on the extent of this practice and how the Commission checks that there are no conflicts of interest when third parties cover the expenses incurred by Commission staff.

Shortly after, the Commission updated its rules concerning third-party contributions to work travel. The Ombudsman concluded at the time that, if applied diligently, these rules would prevent third-party contributions for work travel giving rise to conflicts of interest.

However, the reply of the Commission showed that, although there were only limited examples of work travel by Commission staff that were paid for by third parties, some of these occurred at the highest level of the Commission’s management.

Against this background, the Ombudsman opened this own-initiative inquiry to review a sample of such cases, prior to the entry into force of the updated rules. The purpose of this inquiry was to determine how the Commission assessed potential conflicts of interest related to work travel paid for by third parties, and what steps it took to mitigate the risks of any conflicts of interest that were identified.

The inquiry did not identify any case that gave rise to concerns of conflict of interest other than those of the (former) Commission director-general concerned by the above revelations. The inquiry indicated, however, that the issues were wider in scope. Given that the European Anti-Fraud Office has investigated the matter and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has started an investigation, the Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries into the matter were justified.  

That said, the inquiry demonstrated shortcomings in relation to how the Commission implemented its previous rules on work travel. In particular, the Ombudsman found that the Commission did not record how it had substantively assessed the risks of conflict of interest related to contributions paid by third parties. The Commission also failed to record what the value of the third party contributions was. As these shortcomings are still relevant in how the Commission applies the updated rules, the Ombudsman made two suggestions for improvement to this end.

This inquiry concerned the European Commission’s compliance with the provisions on tobacco lobbying, as set out in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) of the World Health Organization. In particular, the Ombudsman assessed how the Commission ensures the transparency of its interactions with the tobacco industry.

The Ombudsman’s previous work had demonstrated how the Commission’s Directorates-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) and Taxation (DG TAXUD) comply with the obligations in this area. This inquiry sought to assess how the Commission complies with its obligations across all departments and concerning all Commission staff members.

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman shared with the Commission her preliminary findings. She signalled that the Commission’s failure to take a consistent approach across all its departments to complying with its obligations concerning the transparency of interactions with tobacco industry representatives constitutes maladministration. This included the failure to keep and make available minutes of meetings with tobacco interest representatives, as well as the failure to ensure a systemic assessment, across all directorates-general, as to whether potential meetings with tobacco industry representatives are needed.

In its reply, the Commission restated its standard approach to lobbying transparency and referred to the additional measures taken by DG SANTE and DG TAXUD, which existed prior to the Ombudsman’s inquiry. The Ombudsman therefore upheld her finding that the failure by the Commission to ensure a comprehensive approach across all its departments to transparency of meetings with representatives of the tobacco industry constitutes maladministration.

The Commission added, however, that it will instruct its management to conduct an assessment of the risk of exposure to the tobacco industry. The Ombudsman welcomed this commitment as a sign that things might improve in the future. The Ombudsman will write to the Commission, at the start of 2024, with the points she urges it to communicate to its directors-general, heads of service, and heads of cabinets as they conduct this assessment. The Ombudsman will also ask the Commission to report back by 30 June 2024 on the outcome of the assessment and the progress made on that basis.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents related to a meeting between representatives of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Governance (TBI) and two members of the cabinet of the Hungarian Commissioner on 19 June 2024. In particular, the complainant was interested in knowing whether a specific TBI representative, whom the complainant considered a public figure that previously held public office, was present at the meeting.

The Commission provided the complainant with partial access to the meeting report and an email that it had received from TBI ahead of the meeting. The Commission redacted the names of the representatives of TBI. It considered that the arguments put forward by the complainant were not such as to establish a specific need in the public interest for disclosure of this personal data (‘necessity’). Irrespective of the lack of a necessity, the Commission considered that disclosure would undermine the legitimate interests of the individuals concerned. As regards the access request related to an identified individual, the Commission replied that it could neither confirm nor deny whether the person in question had been in the meeting as this too was considered personal data.

The Ombudsman found that it was reasonable for the Commission to consider that the complainant had not put forward sufficient arguments establishing a necessity to have the personal data transferred to him for a specific purpose in the public interest. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry finding that no further inquiries are justified. The Ombudsman noted however that the Commission could have consulted with TBI on the question of disclosing the names of their representatives at the meeting, with the aim of removing any basis for public speculation, and made a corresponding suggestion.

The case concerned the European Commission’s record keeping in relation to high-level meetings with interest representatives. Based on the Commission’s replies to a number of requests for public access to documents, the complainant, a journalist, was concerned that the Commission does not always document what commissioners (and/or members of their cabinets) and directors-general discuss with representatives of industry or civil society when they meet. More specifically, the complainant considered that the Commission had failed to keep records of 15 meetings.

The Ombudsman asked the Commission to provide its comments on the complaint. In reply, the Commission stated that it had provided the complainant with documentation of more than 100 meetings in the relevant period. The Commission also explained that it holds minutes or similar records in relation to all meetings concerned, with the exception of two meetings that had, in fact, not taken place. The complainant did not respond to this information.

The Ombudsman thus considered that no further inquiries were justified and closed the case.