FOR PREVIEWING & TESTING PURPOSES ONLY.
This notification will disappear once the page will be published.
This link is available for less than 30 minutes.
  • De lectura fácil
  • Tamaño del texto
Defensor del Pueblo Europeo
Defensor del Pueblo Europeo

¿Tiene una reclamación contra una institución u órgano de la UE?

Presentación de una reclamación
Presentación de una reclamación
Lengua actual: 
  • English
Idiomas disponibles: 

Decision in case 1370/2019/SRS on how the Commission handled an access to documents request concerning the Commission’s refusal to fund the complainant’s project

Decisión
Caso 1370/2019/SRS - Abierto el Lunes | 22 julio 2019 - Decisión de Jueves | 30 enero 2020 - Institución concernida Comisión Europea ( No se constató mala administración ) - País España

The case concerned a request for access to documents regarding the evaluation of a project that failed to obtain funding through the Horizon 2020 programme.

The Commission gave the complainant access to documents relating to the overall evaluation of his proposal. It refused to give access to the views expressed by individual evaluators, and to the names of evaluators, so as to ensure that they would not be subject to outside pressure.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s decision was justified and there was no maladministration.

Background to the complaint

1. In April 2018, the complainant requested the European Commission to grant him funding for a project.

2. In August 2018, the Commission informed the complainant that his project had not obtained the necessary marks to receive funding. He appealed that decision. His appeal failed.

3. In February 2019, the complainant requested access to a number of documents concerning his application, arguing that the evaluators had conflicts of interests.

4. On 29 March 2019, the Commission replied to the access request. It identified eleven documents falling within the request, including (1) a document containing the review of his proposal, (2) correspondence concerning the results of the redress committee, (3) the formal outcome of the redress committee meeting, (4) the consensus report of the proposal, (5) the evaluation summary report and (6) six reports drawn up by individual evaluators.

5. The Commission noted that the complainant already had a copy of document 5. It granted partial access to documents 1-4, redacting only the names of its staff. It refused access to the six evaluation reports.

6. The complainant submitted a request for review of that decision. The Commission rejected his request for review.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into whether the Commission had handled the complainant’s request for access correctly.

8. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inspected the documents falling within the complainant’s request.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

9. The Commission argued that disclosing the opinions of evaluators would mean that they would be subject to external pressures. Concerning the complainant’s argument that disclosure was necessary to prevent fraud, it stated that the complainant had not explained how disclosure would prevent fraud.

10. It also argued that it could not release the names of staff since to do so would breach data protection rules.

11. The complainant considers that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. He based this assertion on his view that there was possible fraud.

The Ombudsman's assessment

12. Having inspected the relevant documents, the Ombudsman considers that, for the reasons set out below, the Commission was justified in refusing public access to the documents.

13. Public access to personal data (for example, the names of staff and evaluators) can be granted only if doing so is in line with EU data protection rules.[1]  One requirement is that the person seeking access must show that there is a need for the disclosure of such data.[2] The complainant has not provided the Commission with any reason which would justify providing the names of evaluators. The complainant’s statement that he needs access to the names because he suspects there was fraud is vague and speculative. First, his arguments that there was fraud seem to be based only on the fact that his project was not granted funding; he provides no specific grounds for his assertion. Second, he does not explain why access to the names of evaluators would assist in identifying fraud.

14. As regards access to the opinions of each individual evaluator, the Commission must ensure that these opinions are frank and complete. There is a risk that evaluators will not be as frank and complete as possible when assessing a project if they know their individual views will be made public. The Commission was thus right in considering that disclosure would create a risk of self-censorship.[3]

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

There was no maladministration in the Commission’s response to this access to documents request.

The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 30/01/2020

 

[1] Judgement of the Court of 29 June 2010, Commission v Bavarian Lager, C-28/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2010:378.

[2] Judgment of 16 July 2015, ClientEarth, C-615/13 P, ECLI:EU:C:2015:489.

[3] Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008, MyTravel v Commission, T-403/05, ECLI:EU:T:2008:316, paragraphs 50-52; judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012, Sviluppo Globale v Commission,  T-6/10,  ECLI:EU:T:2012:245, paragraph 79.