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 a request for public access to documents held by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) concerning return operations. The complainant specifically asked to receive the requested documents in a machine-readable format. Frontex disclosed the requested documents, but in a different format.

The Ombudsman asked Frontex to explain in more detail its reasons for providing the complainant with a non-machine readable format. In reply, Frontex disclosed the documents in a machine-readable file format.

Since Frontex settled the problem, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents concerning technology developed and military equipment produced as part of an EU-funded project in the defence industry. The European Commission refused access to the two documents it identified, arguing that full disclosure could undermine the public interest as regards public security, defence and military matters, the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual and the protection of commercial interests.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents in question and found that the Commission’s refusal to disclose them was justified due to their sensitive nature.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that the Commission had not acted with maladministration in this case.

The case concerned three requests for public access to documents concerning all EU Pilot procedures and five specific infringement procedures related to procurements in the defence sector. The Commission refused (full) access to the majority of the 153 documents it identified, arguing that full disclosure could undermine the public interest as regards public security, defence and military matters, the financial, monetary or economic policy of Member States, the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual and the protection of commercial interests. The Commission also redacted (parts of) some of the documents, arguing that those were outside the scope of the requests.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents in question and found that the Commission’s refusal to disclose the relevant parts of the documents was generally justified.

However, the Ombudsman expressed concerns regarding the delay incurred by the Commission in dealing with the requests and, once again, urged the Commission to deal with requests for public access to documents within the applicable deadlines.