Rechercher des enquêtes

The case concerned a request for public access to documents held by the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) concerning the migrant situation at the Belarussian border. The SatCen refused to disclose the documents, arguing that disclosure could undermine the protection of the public interest as regards defence and military matters, as well as international relations of the EU’s Member States.

The Ombudsman found that the SatCen was justified in refusing public access to the requested documents. She thus closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

The Ombudsman welcomed the SatCen’s decision to update its rules on public access to documents and encouraged it to follow her ‘short guide for the EU administration on policies and practices to give effect of the right of public access to 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 Given that the public interest at stake cannot be superseded by another public interest that is deemed more important, the Ombudsman closed the case finding no maladministration.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.