Dear Sir or Madam,

You recently submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning how the European Parliament dealt with your request for public access to a video clip by an MEP.

After a careful analysis of all the information you have sent us, I regret to inform you that there are not sufficient grounds to open an inquiry^[1].

I understand from your complaint that you requested public access to a video clip of a German Member of the European Parliament (MEP) recorded inside the Parliament by the audio-visual services of the Parliament on 12 February 2020. In a photo posted by the MEP on his social media account, from the video, which you linked in your initial request to Parliament, one can see the MEP wearing an armband with a Nazi swastika on one arm, and another armband with the Soviet symbol of a hammer and sickle on the other.

On 26 March 2020, Parliament rejected your request, explaining that the President had taken the decision to block the release of the video in order to protect Parliament’s dignity, in line with Articles 2(3) and 15(6) of the Decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2007 on the use of Parliament’s audio-visual facilities.

In my view, due to the content of the video, it was reasonable for Parliament to reject your request for public access to the video.

Parliament then informed you on 5 June 2020, in its reply to your confirmatory application, that the video had been deleted in line with the relevant retention rules (seven days). In your complaint, you argue that Parliament should have secured the video clip when it first received your initial application on 12 February 2020, in line with EU case law.^[2]

As a general rule, an EU institution, body or agency should not delete a document that is subject to a request for public access until the process of challenging a refusal to grant access is completed. Having the document at hand allows a proper review to be carried out of the refusal, including by the European Ombudsman and/or the Court of Justice of the EU.

That said, an EU institution, body or agency can in certain circumstances legitimately decide that a document should no longer be held. In my view, in this specific case the Parliament acted appropriately.

I acknowledge that Parliament extended the time limits for handling your request for both the initial application and the confirmatory application, even though it knew that the video had already been deleted. The Ombudsman will not open an inquiry solely on that aspect, given the arguments presented above.

I appreciate this may not be your desired outcome, but I hope you find these explanations helpful. Thank you for having contacted the European Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely,

Rosita Hickey
Director of Inquiries

Strasbourg, 07/03/2022

 

[1] Full information on the procedure and rights pertaining to complaints can be found at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/document/70707.

[2] Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2011, Julien Dufour v European Central Bank, case T-436/09, paragraph 136.