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.

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.

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 EU Transparency Register was set up to enable the public to follow the activities of interest representatives and be aware of their potential influence on EU policies and decision-making. EU institutions also rely on the Register when engaging with stakeholders.

The complainant in this case, a consumer organisation, was concerned that two entities on the Transparency Register had failed to disclose information on their links with the food industry and had provided misleading information about the relationship between them, the interests they represent and the sources of their funding. The complainant raised these concerns with the Secretariat, which administers the Transparency Register for the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission. It then turned the Ombudsman about how the Secretariat had dealt with its complaints.

The Ombudsman emphasised the essential role that the public plays in identifying inaccurate or incomplete information on the Transparency Register. The Ombudsman found in this case that, despite being alerted to issues, the Secretariat did not conduct meaningful investigations into the complaints. It carried out a limited assessment of the replies received from the two entities concerned and applied a narrow definition of ‘affiliation’ of entities in the Register, which is not in line with its spirit and objective. Moreover, it failed to assess a claim made by the complainant within the limits of activities covered by the Transparency Register.

The Ombudsman found that, taken together, the issues identified amount to maladministration. However, as one of the entities in question is no longer on the Transparency Register, she took the view that a recommendation to conduct a new investigation into the two complaints would not serve any useful purpose. The Ombudsman therefore made four suggestions to the Secretariat, inviting it to report back within three months.

The case concerned the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB), which is an independent body within the European Commission that reviews and issues opinions on Commission draft impact assessments that accompany legislative proposals. The complainant, a non-governmental organisation, raised concerns in relation to the RSB’s composition and its interactions with interest representatives.

Given the RSB’s significant role in the Commission’s decision-making regarding legislative proposals, the Commission should ensure there are no grounds for the public to doubt the RSB’s independence and impartiality. The Ombudsman therefore suggested that, when deciding on outreach activities, RSB members should consider not only the actual risk of undue influence on the RSB’s work but also the public perception of the impact of such activities on its work. In this context, RSB members should in particular refrain from meeting with individual interest representatives.

As regards composition, the complainant was concerned that, due to the absence of social and environmental expertise, economic policy considerations are prioritised over other issues in how the RSB carries out its tasks. The Ombudsman made a suggestion that the Commission ensure that, in future, the composition of the RSB clearly corresponds to the diversity of the expertise required in its Communication on the RSB, that is, the three pillars of sustainable development, namely macro- and microeconomics, social policy and environment policy. The Commission should also clearly describe the criteria it applies for selecting RSB members to this end.