Haluatko tehdä kantelun EU:n toimielimestä tai elimestä?

Hae tutkimuksia

Tai kokeile vanhoja avainsanoja (ennen vuotta 2016)

Näytetään 1–20 yhteensä 163 tuloksesta

Decision on the European Research Executive Agency’s assessment concerning the financial capacity of a company applying to participate in an EU-funded project under the Horizon Europe programme (case 1273/2022/LM)

Perjantaina | 02 kesäkuuta 2023

The case concerned how the European Research Executive Agency (REA) assessed the financial capacity of the complainant, a company that was a member of a consortium applying to participate in a EU-funded project under the Horizon Europe programme. REA maintained that the complainant should not be allowed to participate in the project because it considered that its financial capacity was weak, and proposed this to the coordinator of the consortium. The complainant contested REA’s decision, as the company was participating in other EU-funded projects. The complainant also claimed that REA made the proposal without providing the complainant the opportunity to submit observations.

The Ombudsman found that REA’s actions were reasonable and in line with the applicable rules. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision on the European Commission’s refusal to give full public access to documents concerning a Horizon 2020 mineral exploration research project (cases 1132/2022/OAM and 1374/2022/OAM)

Maanantaina | 17 huhtikuuta 2023

The case concerned the European Commission’s refusal to give full public access to documents concerning a Horizon 2020 mineral exploration research project implemented by a pan-European consortium. The complainant, an environmental organisation from Spain, was interested in the implementation of the project at a Spanish mine, San Finx.

The Commission granted only partial access to the documents, arguing that their full disclosure would have undermined the commercial interest of the consortium’s members.

After reviewing the documents, the Ombudsman considered that they contain information that can be understood as being “environmental information” within the meaning of the EU Aarhus Regulation. Such information should benefit from greater transparency. She asked the Commission to review its position with a view to granting the widest possible public access. The Commission maintained its position that no further access can be granted.

While the Ombudsman regretted the Commission’s decision not to disclose more parts of the documents at stake, she acknowledged that the Commission has already made information publicly available about the research project and, in particular, about the activities at the San Finx mine. In view of this, the Ombudsman considered that further inquiries into this matter are not justified.

Having said that, the Ombudsman is concerned about the Commission’s application of the EU Aarhus Regulation and the Aarhus Convention when assessing requests for public access to documents. She emphasised that the exceptions to granting public access have to be interpreted in a restrictive way as regards environmental information and reminded the Commission that transparency in this area is crucial to enhance the legitimacy of, and public trust in, the EU’s activities.