Mrs Roberta Metsola President European Parliament

 

 

Dear President,

I have received a complaint from LobbyControl, FragDenStaat, Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations and Corporate Europe Observatory, represented by Mr X (‘the complainant’), against the European Parliament. The complaint concerns, among other things, the delay incurred by the Parliament in dealing with a request for public access to a four-column document regarding the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

On 7 February 2022, the complainant made a request for public access to the latest four-column table related to the trilogues concerning the DMA (2020/0374(COD)).

In its initial decision, the Parliament informed the complainant that all available information on that procedure, including the latest four-column table, was available online and provided the link to the relevant website.

Dissatisfied with the Parliament’s reply, the complainant made a confirmatory application. He stated that “leaked documents” showed that the information available on the Parliament’s website was not everything that was available at that time. He urged the Parliament to send him the most recent four-column table on the DMA trilogue.

In April 2022, the Parliament issued its confirmatory decision. It identified a four-column document of 25 February 2022 as falling within the scope of the request (as the latest version of the document at that time). The Parliament explained that the identified document was drawn up in an inter-institutional setting and that it thus had to consult the European Commission and the Council on disclosure. It said that one institution had objected to the disclosure. However, the Parliament granted full public access to the identified four-column document.

The complainant, and the organisations he represents, are dissatisfied with the delay incurred by the Parliament in dealing with the request for public access to the four-column document. They point out that the extended deadline for the confirmatory decision elapsed on 11 April 2022, whereas public access was granted on 27 April 2022 only. In their view, at that time, the document could no longer enable EU citizens to influence the EU legislative process in question, as provisional agreement in trilogues was found on 24 March 2022. The complainant argues that this is a systemic practice and that proactive publication would be the most efficient way of granting public access to legislative documents.

I have decided to open an inquiry into this complaint and have concluded that it would be useful to meet with the relevant representatives of the Parliament to discuss the time and specific steps taken to reply to this request for public access. In particular, my inquiry team would like to clarify whether and why the Parliament referred the applicant in its initial reply to the outdated version of the requested document. The complainant claims that a version of 2 February 2022 existed at the time he made his request for public access, whereas the Parliament referred the complainant to the version of 11 January 2022. Moreover, my inquiry team would like to discuss why the additional time was needed for the inter-institutional consultations in this case.

I would be grateful if your office could contact the inquiries officer, Mr Michał Krajewski, who is in charge of this inquiry, to agree the arrangements for the meeting to take place before 21 April 2023.

I have also decided that it is necessary to inspect the documents concerning the inter-institutional consultations in this case, namely the request by the Parliament and the replies by the other institutions, as well as any other related correspondence. I would be grateful if the Parliament could provide these documents, preferably in electronic format through encrypted e-mail, by 27 March 2023 (five working days). Information or documents that your institution considers to be confidential will not be disclosed to the complainant or any other person without the prior agreement of the Parliament.[1]

The Parliament’s position has been set out in its confirmatory response. However, should the Parliament wish to provide additional views, to be taken into account during my inquiry, they should be provided to my Office within fifteen working days of receipt of this letter, that is, by 7 April 2023.

Yours sincerely,

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 20/03/2023

 

[1] Please clearly mark such material ‘Confidential’. Encrypted emails can be sent to our dedicated mailbox. Information and documents of this kind will be deleted from the European Ombudsman’s files shortly after the inquiry has ended.