The case concerned the use of third-party online platforms for hosting and streaming public events by the European Parliament’s Liaison Office (EPLO) in Helsinki.

The complainant contended that the EPLO in Helsinki was wrong to use third-party platforms, such as Facebook, for streaming public meetings and conferences.

The European Parliament said that, while official parliamentary work is streamed and available on-demand on its website, the EPLOs enjoy a certain degree of flexibility in their outreach activities, and may use third-party platforms for streaming events in order to better reach their target audiences.

The Ombudsman found the Parliament’s explanation reasonable, and closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration. However, to enhance transparency of the EPLOs’ activities, as well as to ensure that members of the public who do not use social media are not excluded, she made three specific suggestions for improvement to the Parliament.

The case concerned a refusal by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency to disclose the names of staff members who supervised a project in Macedonia.

The Agency refused access on the basis of EU data protection rules which require that the person asking for disclosure of personal data, such as names of persons, must show the necessity of disclosing the names of the persons in question. If that requirement is met, the public authority must still establish whether the legitimate interests of the staff members would be affected by the disclosure of their names and, if so, whether those legitimate interests were more important than the necessity put forward by the person asking for the disclosure of the names.

The Ombudsman found that the complainant has not explained why it was necessary for him to have access to the names. As such, the Agency was justified in refusing to disclose the names of the staff members at issue.