The case concerned the European Commission’s handling of a request for access to documents related to the draft Recommendation of the Council of Europe on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries, such as hosts of web-based services, search engines and sales platforms.

The Commission gave full access to some documents, gave partial access to other documents and refused to grant access to certain other documents. In particular, the Commission refused to grant access to a message from a European Commission official to the WeProtect Global Alliance secretariat at the United Kingdom Home Office. The Commission argued that disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations and public security. The complainant contested the Commission’s decision, partly on the basis of the presence of private companies on the Board of WeProtect. He argued that under such circumstances, the message could not be considered to undermine international relations.

The Ombudsman found no maladministration by the Commission in refusing to give access to this particular document and closed the case.

This case is about the transparency of “advisory bodies” that influence the development of EU policy.

The ‘Group of Personalities’ was set up by the Commissioner for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs to help to advise on how the EU can support research related to the Common Security and Defence Policy. An NGO, the European Network Against Arms Trade, complained to the Ombudsman about the lack of transparency regarding the Group of Personalities. It noted, in particular, that the Group did not appear on the European Commission’s Register of expert groups and other similar entities.

The Ombudsman agrees that, in view of its composition - it included political members such as members of the European Parliament, national Parliaments and the Commission - it would be difficult for the Group of Personalities to be considered as an ‘expert group’. However, the Ombudsman notes that the Group of Personalities provided advice in relation to the preparation of a policy initiative, in the same way as an expert group, and that an appropriate level of transparency should have applied to its work. The Ombudsman suggests that an appropriate level of transparency, in relation to this Group, be ensured retrospectively by the Commission. She also suggests that, for the future, the Commission can strengthen public trust in its work by ensuring that appropriate transparency measures are applied to any new version of the Group of Personalities and similar advisory groups that influence important policy areas. Information to be provided about such groups should include, in particular, membership, agendas and minutes of meetings, as well as the criteria for the selection of their non-political members and the measures taken to ensure a balance of relevant stakeholders.

The complaint to the European Commission 1. On 20 May 2018, the complainant asked the European Commission for access to the file of an ongoing EU-Pilot procedure[1] (8847/16/EMPL) against Italy. In particular, he asked to have access to all the letters exchanged by the Commission and Italy (hereinafter, “the requested documents”). The procedure in question concerned Italy’s compliance with a numbe...

The case concerned how the European Commission dealt with correspondence concerning EU rules on breast implants. The complainant felt the Commission had failed (a) to reply to concerns it raised about the Scientific Committee on Health and Environment and Emerging Risks (which provides scientific advice to the Commission) and its advice concerning breast implants. The complainant also believed that the Commission, in considering the risks related to breast implants, had failed (b) to take into account information demonstrating a causal link between breast implants and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. The complainant wanted the Commission (c) to request that EU Member States (temporarily) place a moratorium on textured breast implants.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission had replied to the complainant. Regarding aspects (b) and (c) of the complaint, the Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration by the Commission.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry.

El asunto se refería a la negativa de la Comisión Europea a conceder acceso público total a una nota en relación con una denuncia por infracción relativa a un impuesto español sobre la producción de energía. La Comisión alegó que la divulgación total de la nota perjudicaría la protección de los procedimientos judiciales en curso (ante los tribunales nacionales), así como la privacidad y la integridad de las personas.

La Defensora del Pueblo investigó el asunto y determinó que la decisión de la Comisión de conceder solo acceso parcial a la nota estaba justificada.

Por consiguiente, la Defensora del Pueblo dio por concluida la investigación sin constatar mala administración.

Based on the information provided by the complainant, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the EEA in relation to its decision to terminate the complainant’s employment contract at the end of the probationary period.

1. On 21 March 2018, the complainant wrote to the European Commission (“the Commission”) about the non-compliance by Lithuania with Article 17(1) of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. As the complainant did not receive an acknowledgment of receipt of that infringement complaint, nor a substantive reply, he turned to the European Ombudsman, on 28 May 2018. 2. The Ombudsman’s inquiry team c...

Background to the complaint 1. The complainant is a former staff member of the European Parliament. On 24 November 2017, the European Anti-Fraud Office (‘OLAF’) opened an investigation (case 2017/0878) on the basis of information that the complainant, as an informant, provided to OLAF. 2. On 29 January 2018, the complainant submitted a request for public access to "all submissions, responses, anno...

1. On several occasions in early 2018, the complainant wrote to the European Commission about the use of temporary and contract staff in the Maltese language department of its Directorate-General for Translation (DG Translation). As the complainant considered that he had not received a satisfactory reply, he turned to the European Ombudsman on 3 February 2018. 2. The Ombudsman’s inquiry team conta...

The information provided in the complaint to the Ombudsman does not suggest that EMA’s decision to dismiss the complainant during the probationary period constituted maladministration.