Hae tutkimuksia

Asia koski sitä, että EU:n neuvosto ei antanut saataville oikeudellisia lausuntoja lainsäädäntöehdotuksista asetuksiksi Euroopan syyttäjäviraston (EPPO) ja Euroopan unionin rikosoikeudellisen yhteistyön viraston (EUROJUST) perustamisesta.

Oikeusasiamiehen tutkinnan aikana neuvosto suostui julkistamaan kaksi neljästä asiakirjasta mutta kieltäytyi edelleen julkistamasta kahta jäljellä olevaa asiakirjaa kokonaan mutta antoi ne osittain saataville.

Oikeusasiamies katsoo, että kieltäytyminen julkistamasta oikeudellisia lausuntoja kokonaan oli perusteltu siksi, että se heikentäisi oikeudellisen neuvonnan ja oikeudenkäyntien suojaa. Näin ollen hän päättää asian ja katsoo, että asiassa ei ole todettu hallinnollista epäkohtaa, mutta kehottaa neuvostoa tarkastelemaan kieltäytymistään myöhemmin uudelleen.

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.

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.

Asia koskee Euroopan komission päätöstä kieltää tutustuminen arviointilomakkeisiin, jotka laadittiin arvioimaan jäsenvaltioiden hakemuksia kansallisten matkustajarekisterien[1] käsittelyjärjestelmien yhteisrahoitusta varten. Kantelun teki Euroopan parlamentin jäsen.

Komissio perusteli arviointilomakkeisiin  tutustumista koskevan pyynnön epäämistä unionin yleisen tuomioistuimen tuomiolla, jossa tunnustetaan tarve pitää tarjousmenettelyjä käsittelevien arviointikomiteoiden menettelyt luottamuksellisina. Yleisen tuomioistuimen kyseisessä asiassa tekemän ratkaisun mukaan arviointikomitean jäsenten mielipiteiden julkistaminen vaarantaisi heidän riippumattomuutensa ja heikentäisi siten vakavasti asianomaisen instituution päätöksentekoprosessia. Kantelija katsoi kuitenkin, ettei tätä tuomiota voida soveltaa jäsenvaltioiden tekemien rahoitushakemusten arviointimenettelyyn.

Oikeusasiamies tutki asiaa ja totesi, ettei komission päätös kieltäytyä antamasta pyydettyjä asiakirjoja tutustuttavaksi ollut perusteltu. Lisäksi oikeusasiamies oli yhtä mieltä siitä, että pyydettyjen asiakirjojen julkistamiseen liittyy ehdottoman tärkeä yleinen etu. Siitä syystä hän suositteli komissiolle, että tämä antaisi tutustua pyydettyihin asiakirjoihin (joskin hän hyväksyi, että niistä voitaisiin poistaa arvioijien nimet.

Komissio kieltäytyi hyväksymästä oikeusasiamiehen suositusta ilman vakuuttavia perusteluja kannalle. Näin ollen oikeusasiamies päätti tutkimuksen toteamalla, että asiassa on havaittu hallinnollinen epäkohta.

 

[1] Matkustajarekisteri sisältää tietoja, joita matkustajat antavat varatessaan lentolippuja ja  tehdessään lähtöselvityksen, sekä lentoyhtiöiden omiin kaupallisiin tarkoituksiinsa keräämiä tietoja. Rekisterissä on monen tyyppisiä erilaisia tietoja, kuten matkustuspäivät, matkareitti, lipputiedot, yhteystiedot, matkatoimisto, jonka kautta lento on varattu, käytetty maksutapa, istuimen numero ja matkatavaratiedot. Tiedot on tallennettu lentoyhtiöiden varaus- ja lähtöselvitystietokantoihin.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.