The case concerned how the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) dealt with complaints from a national assistant of the European Delegated Prosecutors in Italy. The complainant alleged that the European Delegated Prosecutors of the EPPO Office in Rome interfered in two administrative procedures he initiated at national level. The complaint also concerned how the EPPO dealt with a request for public access to documents submitted by the complainant.

The Ombudsman found shortcomings in the EPPO’s handling of the complaints in terms of how the EPPO communicated its position to the complainant and the reasons for its conclusion not to take further action. The EPPO addressed this in the course of the inquiry by providing clear and reasonable explanations for its position. The Ombudsman also found that the EPPO did not breach the complainant’s rights when dealing with the complaints.

Regarding the access to documents request, the Ombudsman found that the reasons invoked by the EPPO not to disclose the requested documents do not appear to be in line with the EU legislation on public access to documents. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman found that the decision not to disclose the documents requested by the complainant was reasonable, albeit for a different reason than that relied on by the EPPO.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that no further inquiries are justified.

The case concerned a request for public access to five documents held by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The documents related to risk assessments concerning a few pilots whose non-EU licences had been converted to EU licences by a competent national authority with certain irregularities in the conversion process. EASA refused to grant access to the requested documents, relying on the exception to public access concerning the protection of privacy and integrity of individuals.

In the complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant specified that he was interested only in those parts of the documents that showed the methodology of risk assessment, not the personal data. Having inspected the unredacted versions of the documents at issue, the Ombudsman pointed out that it was possible for EASA to disclose only the parts showing that methodology.

As the EASA accepted the Ombudsman’s position and disclosed the relevant parts of the requested documents, the Ombudsman closed the case as settled.

The case concerned the refusal by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to give public access to two final reports related to two investigations concerning the EIT Manufacturing Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC). In refusing access to the reports, OLAF relied on a general presumption that disclosure would undermine the protection of the purpose of its investigations.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue. Based on the inspection and additional confidential information received from OLAF, the Ombudsman considered that it was reasonable for OLAF to apply the general presumption of non-disclosure in this case, as relevant follow-up activities are still ongoing and a reasonable time for these follow-up activities to be completed has not yet elapsed.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

The case concerned REA’s refusal to give partial access to a letter REA had sent to a beneficiary regarding the recovery of funding. In refusing access, REA relied on the protection of the commercial interests of a third party.

Based on the inspection of the document at issue, the Ombudsman was not convinced by REA’s argument that partial access would seriously undermine the protection of  commercial interests. The Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution asking REA to reconsider its position on the request, with a view to it granting wide partial access to the document at issue.

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

The case concerned a request for public access to documents held by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) related to Joint Return Operations (JROs) and National Return Operations (NROs) coordinated by Frontex for the period 1 July to 31 December 2024. Frontex identified 247 final return operation reports, 46 documents constituting Returns Operational Plan for 2024 and several related grant agreements. Frontex also extracted from its database some of the detailed information requested about return operations but expunged the remainder. Frontex refused access to the 46 documents constituting Returns Operational Plan for 2024 in their entirety whilst granting wide partial access to the grant agreements. Frontex argued that further disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security and international relations as well as commercial interests.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected a sample of the documents at issue and held a meeting with representatives of Frontex. Based on the inspection and the clarifications obtained during the meeting, the Ombudsman found that Frontex’s position was overall justified.

While the Ombudsman thus concluded that the way Frontex handled the request was reasonable and closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there had been no maladministration, she noted that, in the absence of a comprehensive list of documents falling within the scope of the request, it was difficult for the Ombudsman to determine with certainty how many documents Frontex identified as falling within the scope of the request. The Ombudsman therefore reiterated a previous recommendation that, as a matter of good administration, Frontex should provide to applicants a list of documents it identifies as falling within the scope of their requests for public access to documents.

The case concerned the refusal of the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) to give public access to seven documents concerning the extraction of information from communication devices of migrants. In refusing public access to parts of the documents, Eurojust relied on two exceptions set out in the EU legislation on public access to documents, that is, the need to protect the public interest as regards public security, and the need to protect personal data.

Based on the inspection of the documents at issue, the Ombudsman was not convinced by Eurojust’s arguments that wider disclosure of the documents would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security. The Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution, in which she asked Eurojust to reconsider its position on the request, with a view to giving wider public access to the documents at issue. She invited Eurojust, in doing so, to focus on three of the documents concerned, with follow-up adjustments to two additional documents.

Eurojust accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution and gave the complainant wider access to almost all documents. The Ombudsman welcomed Eurojust’s positive response to her proposal for a solution and closed the inquiry.