Cerca indagini

Il caso riguardava il rifiuto del Consiglio dell’Unione europea di concedere il pieno accesso ai pareri giuridici sulle proposte legislative di regolamenti che istituiscono la Procura europea (EPPO) e l’Agenzia dell’Unione europea per la cooperazione giudiziaria penale (EUROJUST).

Nel corso dell’indagine della Mediatrice, il Consiglio ha accettato di divulgare due dei quattro documenti, ma ha mantenuto il suo rifiuto di divulgare integralmente i due documenti rimanenti, sebbene sia stato concesso un accesso parziale.

La Mediatrice riconosce che il rifiuto di divulgare interamente i pareri giuridici era giustificato, in quanto avrebbe compromesso la tutela della consulenza legale e dei procedimenti giudiziari. Di conseguenza ha chiuso il caso senza riscontrare gli estremi di cattiva amministrazione; tuttavia ha invitato il Consiglio a riesaminare il suo rifiuto con il passare del tempo.

The case concerned the complainant’s request for access to two e-mails sent from the private e-mail account of the President of the Governing Board of the European Research Council Executive Agency to the members of the Scientific Council of the Agency. When the Agency refused access on the basis that the two e-mails were not in its possession as they were sent from a private account, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the issue, after which the President of the Governing Board provided the Agency with copies of the two e-mails. Thus, the Agency could assess the complainant’s request for access to the e-mails under Regulation 1049/2001^[1]. The Agency then granted the complainant partial access to the documents. The Ombudsman obtained full copies of the two e-mails and was able to verify that the redactions made in the copies disclosed to the complainant were justified.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the Commission’s refusal to grant public access to draft versions of an Impact Assessment Report (IAR) on indirect land-use change related to biofuels (ILUC). Disclosure of the documents was refused on the ground that it would undermine the Commission’s decision-making process. The complainant, a group of organisations, considered that it should be granted access to the documents it requested.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue. She noted that in September 2015, Parliament and Council adopted Directive 2015/1513. That Directive was based on the Commission’s legislative proposal to which the impact assessment report, the draft versions of which were at issue in this case, was attached. The Ombudsman therefore proposed that, in light of these new circumstances, the Commission grant public access to the requested documents. The Commission disagreed, arguing that there had been no maladministration on its part. It however invited the complainant to make a new request for access to documents, in light of the new circumstances. The complainant later informed the Ombudsman that, following a new request for access to documents, the Commission granted access to the documents it had requested. The Ombudsman thus closed the case with a finding that no further inquiries into the complaint were justified. She also pointed out that the Ombudsman is entitled to ask an institution to take into consideration, when responding to a proposal for a solution of the Ombudsman in an access to documents case, new arguments as to why a document should be released.

Il caso riguardava il rifiuto della Commissione europea di concedere al pubblico l’accesso a moduli di valutazione redatti per valutare le richieste degli Stati membri di cofinanziamenti da parte della Commissione, destinati all’istituzione di sistemi nazionali di trattamento dei dati relativi al codice di prenotazione (PNR[1]). La denuncia è stata presentata da un membro del Parlamento europeo.

Nel negare l’accesso ai moduli di valutazione richiesti, la Commissione ha invocato una sentenza del Tribunale, che ha riconosciuto la necessità di mantenere la segretezza dei lavori dei comitati di valutazione in relazione alle procedure di appalto. In tale causa, il Tribunale ha stabilito che la divulgazione delle opinioni dei membri del comitato di valutazione ne comprometterebbe l’indipendenza, pregiudicando così in modo significativo il processo decisionale dell’istituzione interessata. Il denunciante ritiene tuttavia che tale sentenza non sia applicabile a una procedura concernente la valutazione di richieste di finanziamento presentate da Stati membri.

La Mediatrice ha svolto indagini sulla questione e appurato che il rifiuto della Commissione di divulgare i documenti richiesti non era giustificato, riconoscendo inoltre un interesse pubblico prevalente alla divulgazione dei documenti richiesti. La Mediatrice ha pertanto rivolto alla Commissione la raccomandazione di divulgare i documenti richiesti (accettando, tuttavia, che i nomi dei valutatori fossero omessi).

La Commissione ha rifiutato di accogliere la raccomandazione della Mediatrice, senza fornire motivazioni convincenti a sostegno della propria posizione. La Mediatrice ha, pertanto, archiviato il caso riscontrando gli estremi di cattiva amministrazione.

 

[1] I dati relativi al codice di prenotazione (Passenger Name Record - PNR) sono informazioni fornite dai passeggeri al momento della prenotazione dei biglietti e del check-in in aeroporto nonché raccolte dai vettori aerei per i propri scopi commerciali. I PNR contengono diversi tipi di informazioni, come le date di viaggio, l’itinerario, i dati relativi al biglietto, i recapiti, l’agente attraverso il quale il viaggio è stato prenotato, le modalità di pagamento, il posto assegnato e le caratteristiche dei bagagli.  I dati vengono archiviati nelle banche dati delle compagnie aeree relative alla prenotazione e al controllo delle partenze.

The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s correspondence in the context of a financial audit at the Member State level. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the Commission replied. It disclosed the document requested by the complainant but redacted some personal data (names of physical persons). The Ombudsman found that the Commission correctly justified the redaction under Regulation 45/2001.

The case concerned the handling of a request for information as how to obtain a downloadable version of a case law database held by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’). The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and asked EUIPO to better explain its reasons why it could not comply with the request. The EUIPO’s explanation was accurate and reasonable. Thus, the case was closed with the finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned a refusal by the Commission to disclose the names of staff who had worked on a Commission State aid investigation. In the course of the inquiry the Ombudsman obtained the views of the Commission, the complainant and the European Data Protection Supervisor.

The question of whether the refusal to disclose the names was right hinged upon Article 8 of Regulation 45/2001 on Data Protection. Under that provision the person asking for disclosure must first show the necessity of disclosing the names to that person. If that test is met, the public authority must still establish whether the legitimate interests of the staff members would be affected by the disclosure of their names and, if so, whether those legitimate interests were more important than the necessity put forward by the person asking for the disclosure of the names.  

While holding that the Commission should not apply Article 8 in a restrictive manner when names of staff are at issue, the Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration on the part of the Commission in refusing to disclose the names of the staff members at issue.

The complaint, submitted by the NGO Access Info Europe, concerns the European Commission's allegedly wrongful refusal to grant full public access to evaluation documents concerning a public procurement process for the 'Rehabilitation and extension of the waste water treatment plant of Subotica' (Serbia). The disclosure of the documents was refused on the basis of Article 4(1)(b) (the protection of personal data), Article 4(2) (the protection of commercial interests) and Article 4(3) (the protection of the decision-making process) of Regulation 1049/2001. The complainant considered that it should be granted full access to the evaluation documents.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that there was no maladministration in the Commission's conduct.  However, she suggests that the Commission should systematically obtain, prior to their appointment, the consent of evaluation committee members in procurement processes to the disclosure of their names. Disclosure of their names at the conclusion of the evaluation process should be considered a condition of appointment to such a committee.

The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s letter concerning alleged illegalities committed by national courts in Estonia. In that letter, the complainant also criticised the Commission for not taking any action. The Commission explained that it has no competence to intervene in the matter. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission’s explanations were correct, helpful and in line with its statutory powers. The case was thus closed as settled.

The case concerned the handling by the European External Action Service (EEAS) of the complainant’s request for public access to the “Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement” between the EU and Cuba. In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the EEAS released the document. As a result, the Ombudsman closed the case as settled.