Pretraživanje istraga

The Ombudsman opened a strategic inquiry to assess how the European Commission ensures respect for fundamental rights in EU-funded migration management facilities in Greece. The inquiry was opened in response to concerns that have been raised about the ‘Multi-Purpose Reception and Identification Centres’ (MPRICs) for accommodating migrants and asylum seekers. MPRICs receive funds through the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the Internal Security Fund.

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team met with the Commission and inspected documents relevant to the case. The inquiry team also consulted civil society organisations.

The Commission has a duty to ensure that EU-funded initiatives uphold fundamental rights. The Ombudsman’s inquiry identified issues with how the Commission has complied with its duty to ensure the MPRICs comply with fundamental rights standards. Given the concerns, including with regard to the detention-like nature of the facilities in MPRICs, the Ombudsman suggested that the Commission carry out a fundamental rights impact assessment of the centres, with a view to identifying measures to mitigate any potential risks. The Commission should then publish this assessment. The Ombudsman’s inquiry also led to suggested improvements to the transparency of the Task Force on Migration Management, which was set up by the Commission to improve conditions and end overcrowding in migrant reception centres.

The case concerns practices that the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) applies when handling requests for public access to documents that it considers imprecise or that concern a large amount of documents or very long documents.

The practices involve suspending the statutory time-limits or not applying them at all.

The Ombudsman took the view that such practices are not in line with the EU legislation on public access to documents. That legislation requires requests to be handled promptly. Documents and information sought by requesters can lose relevance if delays occur. This is particularly so for civil society actors seeking to engage in work relating to the protection of fundamental rights. Moreover, if Frontex’s processing of the requests for public access takes too much time, there is a risk that this is perceived as deliberate, so as to avoid timely public scrutiny.

The Ombudsman therefore found maladministration and asked Frontex in this recommendation to cease applying the practices in question.

The case concerned a request for access to correspondence between the chair of the European Parliament’s delegation for relations with Israel and an interest organisation. The Parliament had replied to the complainant that it did not hold such documents.

The Ombudsman’s inquiry showed that Parliament distinguishes  between ‘Parliament documents’, which include documents Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) receive or send in an official parliamentary function, such as in their capacity as chairs of delegations, and documents that pertain to the individual sphere of MEPs in the exercise of their free mandate. While the former category of documents falls within the scope of the EU legislation on public access to documents, the latter does not.

It is difficult to give effect to this distinction in practice.

Given the difficulty distinguishing between the two categories of documents and in the absence of any written guidance on when statements or correspondence of chairs are officially in the name of the chair and when not, the Ombudsman considered that the Parliament had dealt with the complainant’s request in a reasonable manner and closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

However, the Ombudsman made two suggestions to the Parliament. In particular, she suggested that Parliament should establish guidance on how in practice to draw the line between Parliament documents and those documents that pertain to the sphere of individual MEPs.  

The case concerned the eligibility criteria applied in the EU Election Observation Missions Roster (EOM Roster), an electronic system of candidates for observers and core team members participating in EU election observation missions. Observer positions are open to EU citizens and the nationals of Canada, Switzerland and Norway, based on arrangements with these countries. Core team positions are open to EU citizens only.

The complaint concerned changes in the EOM Roster introduced in January 2022, which affected candidates holding dual nationality. Following this change, candidates could change their declared nationality only once per year. Due to this timeframe, the complainant could not change his previously declared Swiss nationality to Polish, which he also held. This meant he could not apply for a core team position. He considered the new rules discriminatory and non-transparent.

In response to the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission admitted having not fully considered the impact of the new rules on the specific situation of candidates holding dual EU and non-EU nationality who wish to apply for core team positions. It committed to adjusting the rules and improving transparency around the rules. Following this, the complainant was able to apply for a core team position based on his Polish nationality.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry by considering that the Commission has settled the complaint.

The case concerned a refusal by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) to give public access to preparatory documents regarding its guidelines on international transfers provided for under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as well as preparatory documents regarding its statement on such transfers and a related reply to a Member of the European Parliament. The complainant considered that the EDPB had applied the exception concerning protection of the decision making process too widely and had failed to take account of the public interest in disclosure.

Following an inspection of the documents by her inquiry team, the Ombudsman was not convinced by the reasons put forward by the EDPB to refuse access. She thus proposed that the EDPB reassess the request and reconsider its decision to deny access to those documents falling within the scope of the complaint.

The EDPB did not follow this solution proposal and sought to rely on a further exception concerning the protection of international relations. The Ombudsman took the view that how the EDPB handled the access request constitutes maladministration. She thus made a recommendation based on the solution proposal, namely that the EDPB reassess the request and reconsider its decision to deny access.

Predmet se odnosio na odbijanje Europskog odbora za zaštitu podataka (EDPB) da omogući javni pristup pripremnim dokumentima u vezi s njegovom izjavom o međunarodnim sporazumima, uključujući prijenos osobnih podataka trećim zemljama ili međunarodnim organizacijama. Podnositelj pritužbe nije se složio sa stajalištem EDPB-a da bi otkrivanje dokumenata ugrozilo njegov postupak donošenja odluka te je tvrdio da, bez obzira na to, postoji prevladavajući javni interes za otkrivanje dokumenata.

Nakon pregleda dokumenata koji je proveo njezin istražni tim, Ombudsmanica nije bila uvjerena razlozima koje je Europski odbor za zaštitu podataka iznio za odbijanje pristupa. Stoga je predložila da Europski odbor za zaštitu podataka preispita zahtjev i ponovno razmotri svoju odluku o uskraćivanju pristupa onim dokumentima koji su obuhvaćeni područjem primjene pritužbe.

EDPB nije slijedio taj prijedlog rješenja i oslonio se na dodatnu iznimku od javnog pristupa koja se odnosi na zaštitu međunarodnih odnosa. Budući da Ombudsmanica smatra da postupanje EDPB-a sa zahtjevom za pristup podnositelja pritužbe predstavlja nepravilnost u postupanju, ona daje odgovarajuću preporuku.