The exchange of correspondence between the complainant and Europol

1. The complainant, a Swedish journalist with a daily newspaper, contacted the European Police Office’s (Europol) press service to request an interview with an expert. She explained that she was interested in receiving general information about money laundering in the EU through the use of cryptocurrencies. She intended to use this information in a press article.

2. The complainant exchanged several emails with Europol, in which she specified the scope of her request and asked some detailed questions. Europol replied by email to some of her questions, directed her to its own reports in the case of some other questions, and explained why it could not arrange for a personal interview with a relevant member of staff. It clarified that, when so requested by the media, it tries to arrange phone or face-to-face interviews to the greatest extent possible. However, it also said that for “operational reasons”, it is not always possible to arrange for a direct interview with a relevant staff member. In such case, Europol said that it reserves the right to reply to journalists’ questions in writing. Europol also sought to reassure the complainant that it was abiding by the same transparency principles as other EU institutions and agencies.

3. Subsequently, the complainant published an article on the subject of her interest. In her emails to Europol however, she argued that, for “press ethical reasons”, she could not use email answers for her article. She said that she “would never rewrite a press release without getting additional comments from a source”. She stated that there are instances when a journalist needs to discuss a topic with an expert so as to ascertain whether the issue is worth pursuing. In her view, accepting answers sent by emails is not a desirable way for journalists to do their work. She reiterated these arguments in her complaint to the European Ombudsman. She added that, by refusing to organise a phone interview with her, Europol was being selective in its dealings with the media and that this approach amounted to a challenge to the freedom of the press in the EU.

The European Ombudsman’s finding

4. The European Ombudsman notes that Europol replied in a timely manner to the complainant on several occasions and that in her complaint she has not challenged the substance of the replies. The Ombudsman also notes that the complainant produced an article for her newspaper apparently on the basis of the replies she received from Europol.

5. The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour states that institutions shall reply to correspondence from the public.[1] However, there is no provision specifying through which channel (for example letter, email, phone call) replies should be sent: this is left to the institution’s discretion. The institution should nonetheless be able to explain why it chooses to reply through this channel.

6. Europol has explained to the complainant why it replied by email rather than by making a member of staff available for a direct interview. Its explanation, summarised in point 2 above, is reasonable.

7. The complainant argues that Europol’s failure to make a member of staff available for a direct interview constitutes a challenge to the freedom of the press. Article 11.2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union recognises that “the freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected”. However, what is at issue here is the degree of cooperation which an EU body should demonstrate in its dealings with the media. The Ombudsman does not accept that a failure to arrange for a direct interview with a staff member, in circumstances where information and replies to questions have been provided by email, can be characterised as a challenge to the freedom of the press.

8. EU bodies should always seek to engage with journalists openly, transparently and as regularly as possible. By cooperating with the media, EU bodies help ensure respect for citizens’ right “to participate in the democratic life of the Union”.[2] However, the Ombudsman understands and accepts that each EU body must be able to exercise some discretion in deciding on the extent to which, and the manner in which, it will engage with the media.

9. The Ombudsman can understand the complainant’s disappointment, in this case, in not being granted the interview she requested. The Ombudsman understands also how direct and face-to-face interviews can potentially provide a more rounded and nuanced understanding of an issue - something that can also be of benefit to the institution. At the same time, the Ombudsman believes that Europol has explained satisfactorily why it would not arrange for an interview in reply to the complainant’s request. Accordingly, the Ombudsman does not find maladministration by Europol in its handling of this case.

 

Marta Hirsch-Ziembińska

Head of Inquiries and ICT - Unit 1

Strasbourg, 30/10/2018

 

[1] Article 22 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour (requests for information): ‘(1) The official shall, when he or she has responsibility for the matter concerned, provide members of the public with the information that they request. [...] The official shall take care that the information communicated is clear and understandable. [...].’ (Emphasis added).

[2] Article 10.3 of the Treaty on the European Union: ‘Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen’.

[3] This complaint has been dealt with under delegated case handling, in accordance with Article 11 of the Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions.