Rechercher des enquêtes

The complainant took part in two selection procedures for contract staff, organised by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) in 2018 and 2019. He was dissatisfied with how Frontex dealt with his administrative complaint about the evaluation of his application in the 2018 selection procedure, in which he was unsuccessful. He also complained that Frontex had failed to reply to his request for feedback regarding the 2019 selection procedure.

In the course of the inquiry, Frontex provided the complainant with feedback regarding the 2019 selection procedure. As regards the 2018 selection procedure, the Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how Frontex had assessed the complainant’s application. However, the Ombudsman considered that Frontex had not dealt with the complainant’s administrative complaint in an entirely satisfactory manner.

Given that the inquiry revealed no manifest error of assessment, the Ombudsman considered that no additional inquiries would be justified into that aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman suggested, however, that Frontex improve how it communicates to applicants the redress possibilities in the context of its staff selection procedures, as well as how it processes and keeps records of complaints by unsuccessful applicants.

L’affaire portait sur une demande d’accès du public à des documents concernant la récente suspension de onze partis politiques en Ukraine. Le Service européen pour l’action extérieure (SEAE) a recensé deux documents relevant du champ d’application de la demande du plaignant. Le SEAE a donné accès à certaines parties d’un document et a refusé l’accès à l’autre document, invoquant des exceptions au titre de la législation de l’Union relative à l’accès du public aux documents, et faisant valoir que la divulgation des documents pourrait porter atteinte à l’intérêt public en ce qui concerne les questions militaires et de défense, ainsi que les relations internationales. De l’avis du plaignant, un intérêt public supérieur justifie la divulgation des documents.

L’équipe de la Médiatrice chargée de réaliser les enquêtes a analysé le document et a obtenu des précisions supplémentaires et confidentielles de la part du SEAE. Sur cette base et en tenant compte de la vaste marge d’appréciation dont disposent les institutions de l’UE lorsqu’elles estiment que les questions militaires et de défense et les relations internationales sont exposées à un risque, la Médiatrice a jugé que la décision du SEAE de refuser l’accès ne constituait pas une erreur manifeste. En outre, étant donné que l’intérêt public en cause ne pouvait pas être remplacé par un autre intérêt public jugé plus important, la Médiatrice a estimé que, quand bien même le plaignant soulevait une question importante, ses arguments n’étaient pas de nature à justifier une divulgation. La Médiatrice a conclu que le refus opposé par le SEAE d’octroyer un accès public au document demandé était justifié. Elle n’a dès lors constaté aucun cas de mauvaise administration et a clôturé l’affaire.

L’affaire portait sur une demande d’accès du public à des documents détenus par le Centre satellitaire de l’Union européenne (CSUE) relatifs à la situation des migrants à la frontière biélorusse. Le CSUE a refusé de divulguer les documents au motif que cela pourrait porter atteinte à la protection de l’intérêt public en ce qui concerne les questions militaires et de défense, ainsi que les relations internationales des États membres de l’UE.

La Médiatrice a conclu que le refus opposé par le CSUE d’octroyer un accès public aux documents demandés était justifié. Elle a par conséquent clôturé l’enquête en concluant à l’absence de mauvaise administration.

La Médiatrice s’est félicitée de la décision du CSUE de mettre à jour ses règles relatives à l’accès du public aux documents et l’a encouragé à suivre son «petit guide destiné à l’administration de l’UE, consacré aux politiques et aux pratiques permettant de mettre en œuvre le droit d’accès du public aux documents».

The case concerned a request for public access to documents drawn up for the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy relating to funding of Palestinian civil society organisations. The European External Action Service (EEAS) identified excerpts of five documents as falling within the scope of the request. The EEAS denied access, arguing that disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue and obtained additional, confidential explanations from the EEAS. Based on this and considering the wide margin of discretion that EU institutions enjoy where they consider that international relations are at risk, the Ombudsman found that the EEAS’s decision to refuse access was not manifestly wrong. Given that the public interest at stake cannot be superseded by another public interest that is deemed more important, the Ombudsman closed the case finding no maladministration.

The case concerned how the European External Action Service’s handled a complaint concerning the pre-selection of candidates by Romania for the Junior Professionals in Delegations programme. The EEAS said that, according to the rules, it cannot review Member States’ assessments of candidates, unless there is a manifest error or substantiated allegations that the procedure was not fair, transparent and objective, which was not the case. The Ombudsman found the EEAS’s explanation of its role, as well as its assessment of this case, was reasonable.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

This decision is not published as there is a risk that the complainant may be identified from the specific circumstances of the case.

The case concerned the European Commission’s failure to reply in time to a request for public access to documents concerning an EU funded project on the legal framework and capability in terms of search and rescue of the Libyan Coast Guard.

The Ombudsman found that there were shortcomings in how the Commission dealt with the public access request with the result that it took too long. However, since the Ombudsman is now examining, from a systemic perspective, the time taken by the Commission to deal with requests for public access to documents, she considered that no further inquiries were justified in this case. She thus closed the inquiry.