Meklēt izmeklēšanas

The Ombudsman conducted an inquiry on her own initiative into the decision of the European Defence Authority (EDA) to allow its former Chief Executive to take up two senior positions with Airbus, an aerospace company.

The Ombudsman’s inquiry also looked into how the EDA dealt with the fact that the former Chief Executive took up his new positions before the EDA had authorised him to do so, which is a breach of the EDA’s Staff Regulations.

The Ombudsman found that the conditions imposed on the former Chief Executive by the EDA in its authorising decision were insufficient when measured against the risks, and could not be monitored and enforced. There were also shortcomings in how the EDA assessed the risk of conflicts of interest.

The EDA should have instead applied stronger conditions and forbidden the former Chief Executive from taking up the position which gave rise to the greatest risk of conflict with the EDA’s legitimate interest. Not doing so amounted to maladministration by the EDA.

Based on these findings, the Ombudsman issued two recommendations:

(i) In future, the EDA should forbid its senior staff from taking up positions after their term of office where a clear conflict of interest arises with the legitimate interests of the EDA;

(ii) The EDA should set out the criteria for forbidding such moves, in order to give clarity to senior staff. Applicants for senior EDA posts should be informed of the criteria when they apply.

The complainant sought public access to the annual report on the implementation of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) of the EU in 2020.

The European External Action Service (EEAS) disclosed introductory and general statements from the report and redacted the remaining parts. It said that disclosure of the redacted parts could undermine the protection of the public interests as regards international relations and as regards defence and military matters.

The inspection of the document confirmed that the report contains highly sensitive information liable to jeopardise defence and military matters. The Ombudsman found that full disclosure of the information contained in the document would allow hostile third parties and entities to anticipate the resources the EU will be able to deploy and to improve their own capabilities in order to counteract the EU’s external political and strategic approach. The Ombudsman also found the EEAS’s reliance on the international relations exception to be convincing. Thus, the Ombudsman concluded that the EEAS was justified in refusing access and closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

The case concerned the failure by the European External Action Service (EEAS) to reply to a letter concerning a disciplinary investigation that had taken place in 2017 in an EU civilian mission.

The Ombudsman found that the EEAS had repeatedly failed to reply to the complainant’s letters. Even if the EEAS considered that it could not reply on the substance, due to ongoing legal proceedings, it should have replied and explained this to the complainant. The failure to do so was maladministration.

Since, in the context of the inquiry, the EEAS explained why it believes it cannot give a substantive reply to the complainant, the Ombudsman did not make a recommendation to this end. She trusts, however, that the EEAS will take this finding on board going forward.

Lieta attiecās uz Eiropas Komisijas atteikumu piešķirt publisku piekļuvi dokumentiem attiecībā uz projektu piedāvājumu novērtēšanu Eiropas aizsardzības rūpniecības attīstības programmas ietvaros. Sūdzības iesniedzējs pieprasīja publisku piekļuvi novērtējumiem par piedāvāto projektu atbilstību starptautiskiem tiesību aktiem, jo īpaši ņemot vērā aizsardzības tehnoloģiju ietekmi uz cilvēktiesībām. Komisija identificēja dažādas dokumentu kategorijas, kas daļēji atbilda pieprasījumam. Tā atteica piekļuvi, uzskatot, ka atklāšana varētu apdraudēt sabiedrības intereses attiecībā uz aizsardzību, militārajiem jautājumiem un komerciālo interešu aizsardzību.

Ombude izskatīja dokumentu paraugu un konstatēja, ka Komisijas lēmums atteikt piekļuvi ir bijis pamatots, ņemot vērā dokumentu īpašo raksturu. Tādēļ ombude slēdza izmeklēšanu, nekonstatējot administratīvu kļūmi. Tomēr ombude atzīmēja, ka ir svarīgi radīt sabiedrībai pārliecību, ka Komisija rūpīgi izvērtē ES finansēto aizsardzības projektu atbilstību starptautiskiem tiesību aktiem. Tā kā projekti aptver tādas jomas kā dronu tehnoloģijas, jūras uzraudzība un aizsardzības spējas militāriem galalietotājiem, sabiedrībai jābūt pārliecinātai, ka tiek veikta rūpīga izvērtēšana. Tādēļ ombude atzinīgi vērtē paredzēto ētisko novērtējumu nākamajā Eiropas Aizsardzības fondā 2021.–2027. gadam. Viņa mudina Komisiju veikt šo novērtējumu pēc iespējas pārredzamāk.

The complaint concerned the European External Action Service’s (EEAS) decision not to pay a severance grant to a locally hired staff member in the EU Delegation to Algeria. The Delegation had supported paying the grant, arguing that this had been the practice based on an administrative note.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the staff member had no ‘legitimate expectation’, in the legal sense, to receive a severance grant. She thus closed the case with a finding of no-maladministration. The Ombudsman pointed out, however, that it was regrettable that the EEAS had failed to ensure clear and consistent communication to staff about the rules applying to the individuals in question. This lack of clarity left the staff member concerned with an incorrect understanding of the situation. As the EEAS is phasing out the relevant staff category, the Ombudsman will not pursue this matter. She trusts, however, that the EEAS will, in the meantime, ensure that the employment conditions applicable to the individuals in question are clarified.

Lieta attiecās uz pieprasījumu publiskai piekļuvei īsziņām, ko 2018. gadā Eiropadomes toreizējais priekšsēdētājs nosūtījis valstu un to valdību vadītājiem. Eiropadome norādīja, ka tā neglabā šādas īsziņas. Sūdzības iesniedzēji izteica šaubas, ka Eiropadomes rīcībā nav nekādu dokumentu attiecībā uz viņu piekļuves pieprasījumu.

Ombude norādīja, ka pastāv juridiska prezumpcija, ka Eiropadomes rīcībā nav attiecīgo dokumentu un ka šo prezumpciju neatspēko sūdzības iesniedzēju izvirzītie argumenti un pierādījumi. Līdz ar to viņa nekonstatēja administratīvu kļūmi šajā īpašajā lietā.

Tāpat viņa teica, ka sūdzības iesniedzējs aktualizē svarīgas problēmas, proti, attiecīgu ierakstu saglabāšanas nepieciešamību, kad runa ir par tūlītēju ziņapmaiņu. Skaidrs, ka teksta ziņojumus un tūlītēju ziņapmaiņu arvien vairāk lieto profesionālā saziņā, tostarp būtiskas informācijas paziņošanai. Saistībā ar pienākumu sagatavot un glabāt dokumentus, kas attiecas uz to darbību, ES iestādēm ir jāatspoguļo šī realitāte savos attiecīgajos noteikumos par dokumentu reģistrēšanu, nodrošinot, ka attiecīgā saziņa tiek pienācīgi reģistrēta..