Background to the complaint

1. On 9 December 2018, the complainant, a German citizen, asked the European Parliament for public access to all documents related to the 26th South-Africa EU Inter-Parliamentary meeting in Cape Town. In particular, he wished to access the mission ‘bulletin’, the report of the mission, the mission expenses and related internal correspondence.

2. On 10 January 2019, Parliament informed the complainant that it needed more time to process his request and extended the time limit by 15 working days[1].

On 1 February 2019, Parliament replied to the complainant that it had identified three documents as falling within the scope of his request. [2][3]internal background dossier to the 26th EP/South Africa Inter-Parliamentary Meeting (IPM) that took place on 30 October to 2 November 2018” (‘internal background dossier’). It considered that granting full public access to this document would undermine international relations, as protected by the EU’s rules on public access to documents[4]  (‘Regulation 1049/2001’). Regarding the mission expenses, Parliament explained that it could not identify any document as falling within the scope of the complainant’s request, as the corresponding accounts had not yet been completed when the request was made.

4. On 9 February 2019, the complainant asked Parliament to review its decision.

5. On 4 March 2019, Parliament informed the complainant that it needed more time to reply to his review request and extended the time limit by 15 working days[5].

6. On 25 March 2019, Parliament confirmed its decision to refuse full public access to the internal background dossier.

7. Dissatisfied with Parliament’s reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman on 30 March 2019.

The inquiry

8. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the following aspects of the complaint:

1) Parliament wrongly extended the 15-working-day deadline to reply to the complainant’s initial and confirmatory requests; and

2) Parliament wrongly refused full public access to the internal background dossier.

9. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team inspected the unredacted version of the internal background dossier. The Ombudsman's decision takes into account all the arguments and views put forward by the parties.

1. Extension of time limits

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

10. The complainant claims that Parliament wrongly extended the time limits to reply to his initial and confirmatory application. He also takes the view that Parliament failed to give proper reasons for the extensions, as the Christmas break cannot be considered a valid reason for extending the deadline. 

The Ombudsman's assessment

11. Regulation 1049/2001 allows for an extension of the 15-working-day time limit to reply to access to document requests (at initial and confirmatory stage) by another 15 working days “in exceptional cases, for example in the event of an application relating to a very long document or to a very large number of documents”.[6] In such cases, the applicant must be notified in advance and “detailed reasons” must be given. The initial 15 working-day time limit starts running on the day of registration of the application.[7]

12. Parliament extended the respective time limits for replying to the complainant’s initial and confirmatory applications. Contrary to what the complainant argues, the Ombudsman notes that Parliament replied to both applications within the (extended) time limits:

· As regards the complainant’s initial application of 9 December 2018, Parliament extended the time limit on the last day of the initial 15-working-day period (on 10 January 2019)[8] and then issued its initial decision 15 working days later on 1 February 2019.

· As regards the complainant’s confirmatory application of 9 February 2019, Parliament extended the time limit on 4 March 2019 (after 15 working days) and then issued its confirmatory decision on 25 March 2019 (15 working days later).

13. The Ombudsman also considers that Parliament provided the complainant with reasons for extending the time limit in both cases. The reason given by Parliament for the extension to reply to the initial application was not the Christmas holidays, as the complainant argues, but “ongoing internal consultations of the Parliament’s legal service and the need to translate the decisions into German”. As regards the extension to reply to the complainant’s confirmatory application, Parliament explained that this extension was necessary to finalise the assessment of Parliament’s legal service and to allow sufficient time to translate the decision into German. The Ombudsman considers these explanations to be sufficiently detailed and reasonable.

14. In the light of the above, the Ombudsman’s inquiry into this aspect of the complaint did not reveal any instance of maladministration.

2. Refused full public access to the internal background dossier

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

15. The complainant argues that Parliament wrongly refused access to the requested internal background dossier to protect international relations. He says Parliament has not provided sufficient explanations as to why it considers this exception applicable.

The Ombudsman's assessment

16. Regulation 1049/2001[9] requires EU institutions to refuse public access to a document where its disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations.

17. In refusing full public access to the internal background dossier, Parliament explained to the complainant that the document contains information on various matters concerning the relations between the EU and South Africa. The disclosure of the information, which Parliament redacted, could negatively affect that relationship.

18. Having inspected the document the Ombudsman was satisfied that the release of the redacted information might well undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations between the EU and South Africa. Parliament’s reliance on this exception is thus reasonable.

19. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s inquiry did not bring to light any maladministration.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

The Ombudsman has found no maladministration in how the European Parliament dealt with the request for public access to documents.

The complainant and Parliament will be informed of this decision.

 

Fergal Ó Regan

Coordination of Public Interest Inquiries - Unit 2

Strasbourg, 15/07/2019

 

 

 

[1] In accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32001R1049

[2] A letter dated 25 April 2018 (Ref D 306839) from Johannes Cornelius van Baalen, Head of Delegation for relations with South Africa, requesting the authorization of an inter-parliamentary meeting of EU South Africa from 29 October to 4 November 2018.

[3] Report on the trip to the relevant inter-parliamentary meeting.

[4] Article 4(1) third indent of Regulation 1049/2001.

[5] In accordance with Article 8(3) of Regulation 1049/2001.

[6] Articles 7(3) and 8(2).

[7] Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001.

[8] This calculation takes into consideration the public holidays of the EU institutions. The EU institutions were closed from 24 December 2018 to 2 January 2019, see Commission Decision of 4 January 2017 on public holidays for 2018 for the institutions of the European Union: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D0217(01)&from=EN

[9] Article 4(1) third indent of Regulation 1049/2001.