Pretraživanje istraga

The complainant, a journalist, asked the European Commission for public access to documents concerning the adoption of EU rules on real driving emissions values. The Commission refused to grant access. In doing so, it invoked an exception under the EU's legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure could undermine legal proceedings, as the matter had previously been subject to court proceedings and could be again in the future.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents in question and confirmed that they contain internal legal advice concerning a judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018. The Ombudsman found that, in view of the specific context of the case, it was reasonable for the Commission to assume that the same subject matter would be challenged in court again.

She therefore considered that the Commission was justified in protecting the confidentiality of four out of five documents at this stage, and concluded that there was no maladministration.

The fifth document is an official Commission decision to appeal to the Court. The Ombudsman’s view is that this document could be made public, in particular because the Commission’s arguments (as presented to the Court) are reflected in the publicly available opinion of the Advocate General. However, since this document was not the main document at issue of the complaint, the Ombudsman does not find it justified to prolong the inquiry into this matter. She trusts that the Commission will look at the document again and reconsider its position.

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to recover funds from an organisation that carried out an EU-funded project relating to environmental protection and biodiversity in the Horn of Africa. The Commission sought to recover the funds following the findings of an audit report. The complainant contested this decision.

In the course of the inquiry, the Commission waived its decision to recover the funds granted for one of the costs. The Commission further explained why it had considered the other costs concerned as ineligible. The Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s explanations were reasonable and closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

Predmet se odnosio na zahtjev za javni pristup dokumentima o olovu u streljivu koji su u posjedu Europske agencije za sigurnost hrane (EFSA). EFSA-i je za obradu zahtjeva trebalo više od sedam mjeseci, čime je rok produljen u više navrata, zbog čega podnositelj pritužbe nije mogao upotrijebiti dokumente u pripremi doprinosa javnom savjetovanju koje je organizirala druga agencija EU-a.

Ombudsmanica je otvorila istragu i utvrdila nepravilnosti u postupanju EFSA-e sa zahtjevom podnositelja pritužbe za pristup, a posebice u pogledu njezinih nepoštovanja rokova utvrđenih u zakonodavstvu EU-a o javnom pristupu dokumentima. Preporučila je da bi EFSA trebala prestati s praksom produljenja propisanih rokova na više od 30 radnih dana kada predlaže „pravedno rješenje”. Također je preporučila da EFSA u ranoj fazi podnositeljima zahtjeva dostavi popis dokumenata u kojima je zahtjev za pristup formuliran u širem smislu.

EFSA je pozitivno odgovorila na preporuke Ombudsmanice i obvezala se izmijeniti svoja pravila i prakse kako bi osigurala brzu obradu zahtjeva za javni pristup dokumentima. Ombudsmanica je zaključila istragu pozdravljajući pozitivan odgovor EFSA-e i korake koje je već poduzela te koje namjerava poduzeti kako bi provela njezine preporuke.