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

Consultar investigaciones

Búsqueda del texto

Tipo de documento

Institución concernida

Tipo de acuerdo

Referencia del caso

Idioma

Límites de fecha

Palabras clave

O pruebe palabras clave antiguas (anteriores a 2016)

Mostrando 1 - 20 de 686 resultados

Decisión adoptada en el asunto 21/2016/JAP sobre la negativa del Consejo de la Unión Europea a conceder acceso a los dictámenes jurídicos sobre las propuestas de Reglamento por el que se crea la Fiscalía Europea y la Agencia Europea de Cooperación en materia de Justicia Penal (EUROJUST)

Jueves | 07 marzo 2019

El asunto versaba sobre la negativa del Consejo de la Unión Europea a conceder acceso total a los dictámenes jurídicos sobre las propuestas legislativas de Reglamento por el que se crea la Fiscalía Europea y la Agencia Europea de Cooperación en materia de Justicia Penal (EUROJUST).

Durante la investigación de la Defensora del Pueblo, el Consejo aceptó publicar dos de los cuatro documentos, pero mantuvo su negativa respecto a la publicación total de los dos documentos restantes, si bien se concedió el acceso parcial.

La Defensora del Pueblo admite que la negativa de publicar la totalidad de los dictámenes jurídicos quedaba justificada aduciendo que podría socavar la protección del asesoramiento jurídico y los procedimientos judiciales. Por consiguiente, archiva el asunto por considerar que no se había producido mala administración, pero invita al Consejo a revisar su negativa en vista de que el tiempo sigue corriendo.

Decision in case 66/2016/DK on the European Research Council Executive Agency’s action concerning a request for access to documents

Jueves | 21 diciembre 2017

The case concerned the complainant’s request for access to two e-mails sent from the private e-mail account of the President of the Governing Board of the European Research Council Executive Agency to the members of the Scientific Council of the Agency. When the Agency refused access on the basis that the two e-mails were not in its possession as they were sent from a private account, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the issue, after which the President of the Governing Board provided the Agency with copies of the two e-mails. Thus, the Agency could assess the complainant’s request for access to the e-mails under Regulation 1049/2001[1]. The Agency then granted the complainant partial access to the documents. The Ombudsman obtained full copies of the two e-mails and was able to verify that the redactions made in the copies disclosed to the complainant were justified.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 709/2015/MDC on the Commission's refusal to grant public access to drafts of the final Impact Assessment Report accompanying its proposal for a Directive amending the Fuel Quality and Renewable Energy Directives

Miércoles | 04 octubre 2017

The case concerned the Commission’s refusal to grant public access to draft versions of an Impact Assessment Report (IAR) on indirect land-use change related to biofuels (ILUC). Disclosure of the documents was refused on the ground that it would undermine the Commission’s decision-making process. The complainant, a group of organisations, considered that it should be granted access to the documents it requested.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue. She noted that in September 2015, Parliament and Council adopted Directive 2015/1513. That Directive was based on the Commission’s legislative proposal to which the impact assessment report, the draft versions of which were at issue in this case, was attached. The Ombudsman therefore proposed that, in light of these new circumstances, the Commission grant public access to the requested documents. The Commission disagreed, arguing that there had been no maladministration on its part. It however invited the complainant to make a new request for access to documents, in light of the new circumstances. The complainant later informed the Ombudsman that, following a new request for access to documents, the Commission granted access to the documents it had requested. The Ombudsman thus closed the case with a finding that no further inquiries into the complaint were justified. She also pointed out that the Ombudsman is entitled to ask an institution to take into consideration, when responding to a proposal for a solution of the Ombudsman in an access to documents case, new arguments as to why a document should be released.

Decisión en el asunto 1959/2014/MDC relativo a la negativa de la Comisión Europea a conceder acceso público a la documentación para evaluar las solicitudes de cofinanciación de mecanismos para procesar los registros de nombres de pasajeros

Jueves | 13 julio 2017

El asunto se refiere a la negativa de la Comisión Europea a conceder acceso público a la documentación elaborada para evaluar las solicitudes de los Estados miembros para que la Comisión cofinancie sistemas nacionales de procesamiento de datos sobre el registro de nombres de los pasajeros (PNR[1]). La reclamación fue presentada por un diputado al Parlamento Europeo.

Para denegar el acceso a la documentación de evaluación solicitada, la Comisión se basa en una sentencia del Tribunal General en la que se reconoce la necesidad de mantener la confidencialidad de los procedimientos de los comités de evaluación en relación con las licitaciones. En dicho asunto, el Tribunal dictaminó que la divulgación de las opiniones de los miembros de los comités de evaluación pondría en peligro su independencia y, por ende, socavaría gravemente el proceso decisorio de la institución correspondiente. No obstante, la parte demandante consideró que esta sentencia no era aplicable a un procedimiento de evaluación de las solicitudes de financiación presentadas por Estados miembros.

La Defensora del Pueblo investigó el asunto y concluyó que la negativa de la Comisión a hacer públicos los documentos solicitados no estaba justificada. Asimismo, coincidió en que la divulgación de los documentos solicitados revestía un interés general superior. Por ello, la Defensora del Pueblo hizo una recomendación a la Comisión para que hiciera públicos los documentos solicitados (aunque aceptó que se suprimieran los nombres de los evaluadores).

La Comisión se negó a aceptar la recomendación de la Defensora del Pueblo sin ofrecer motivos convincentes de su posición. Por ese motivo, la Defensora del Pueblo archivó el asunto, considerando que la Comisión había incurrido en mala administración.

 

[1] Los datos del registro de nombres de los pasajeros (PNR) proceden de la información que facilitan los pasajeros al reservar sus billetes y al facturar sus vuelos, y de la que las compañías aéreas recopilan para sus propios fines comerciales. Contienen varios tipos de información, como las fechas de viaje, el itinerario, la información sobre el billete, la información de contacto, la agencia de viajes mediante la cual se reservó el vuelo, el medio de pago utilizado, el número de asiento e información sobre el equipaje. Estos datos se almacenan en las bases de datos de control de reservas y salidas de las compañías aéreas.

Decision in case 1102/2016/JN on the Commission’s failure to reply to correspondence and to fully disclose a document

Viernes | 13 enero 2017

The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s correspondence in the context of a financial audit at the Member State level. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the Commission replied. It disclosed the document requested by the complainant but redacted some personal data (names of physical persons). The Ombudsman found that the Commission correctly justified the redaction under Regulation 45/2001.

Decision in case 739/2016/JAP concerning the European Union Intellectual Property Office’s refusal to grant access to a downloadable version of its case law database

Miércoles | 11 enero 2017

The case concerned the handling of a request for information as how to obtain a downloadable version of a case law database held by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’). The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and asked EUIPO to better explain its reasons why it could not comply with the request. The EUIPO’s explanation was accurate and reasonable. Thus, the case was closed with the finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 393/2015/MDC on the European Commission’s refusal to grant full public access to evaluation documents concerning a public procurement process

Lunes | 19 diciembre 2016

The complaint, submitted by the NGO Access Info Europe, concerns the European Commission's allegedly wrongful refusal to grant full public access to evaluation documents concerning a public procurement process for the 'Rehabilitation and extension of the waste water treatment plant of Subotica' (Serbia). The disclosure of the documents was refused on the basis of Article 4(1)(b) (the protection of personal data), Article 4(2) (the protection of commercial interests) and Article 4(3) (the protection of the decision-making process) of Regulation 1049/2001. The complainant considered that it should be granted full access to the evaluation documents.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that there was no maladministration in the Commission's conduct.  However, she suggests that the Commission should systematically obtain, prior to their appointment, the consent of evaluation committee members in procurement processes to the disclosure of their names. Disclosure of their names at the conclusion of the evaluation process should be considered a condition of appointment to such a committee.

Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 1206/2014/PD concerning the European Commission’s refusal to disclose the names of officials in a State aid case

Lunes | 19 diciembre 2016

The case concerned a refusal by the Commission to disclose the names of staff who had worked on a Commission State aid investigation. In the course of the inquiry the Ombudsman obtained the views of the Commission, the complainant and the European Data Protection Supervisor.

The question of whether the refusal to disclose the names was right hinged upon Article 8 of Regulation 45/2001 on Data Protection. Under that provision the person asking for disclosure must first show the necessity of disclosing the names to that person. If that test 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.  

While holding that the Commission should not apply Article 8 in a restrictive manner when names of staff are at issue, the Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration on the part of the Commission in refusing to disclose the names of the staff members at issue.

Transparency of the Eurogroup

Jueves | 01 diciembre 2016

Decision in case 1171/2016/EIS on the Commission’s handling of correspondence concerning alleged illegalities committed by national courts in Estonia

Jueves | 24 noviembre 2016

The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s letter concerning alleged illegalities committed by national courts in Estonia. In that letter, the complainant also criticised the Commission for not taking any action. The Commission explained that it has no competence to intervene in the matter. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission’s explanations were correct, helpful and in line with its statutory powers. The case was thus closed as settled.

Decision of the European Ombudsman in case 789/2016/EIS concerning the EEAS’ handling of a request for public access to the “Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement” between the EU and Cuba

Jueves | 10 noviembre 2016

The case concerned the handling by the European External Action Service (EEAS) of the complainant’s request for public access to the “Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement” between the EU and Cuba. In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the EEAS released the document. As a result, the Ombudsman closed the case as settled.