Meklēt izmeklēšanas

The complainant took part in two selection procedures for contract staff, organised by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) in 2018 and 2019. He was dissatisfied with how Frontex dealt with his administrative complaint about the evaluation of his application in the 2018 selection procedure, in which he was unsuccessful. He also complained that Frontex had failed to reply to his request for feedback regarding the 2019 selection procedure.

In the course of the inquiry, Frontex provided the complainant with feedback regarding the 2019 selection procedure. As regards the 2018 selection procedure, the Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how Frontex had assessed the complainant’s application. However, the Ombudsman considered that Frontex had not dealt with the complainant’s administrative complaint in an entirely satisfactory manner.

Given that the inquiry revealed no manifest error of assessment, the Ombudsman considered that no additional inquiries would be justified into that aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman suggested, however, that Frontex improve how it communicates to applicants the redress possibilities in the context of its staff selection procedures, as well as how it processes and keeps records of complaints by unsuccessful applicants.

Lieta attiecās uz pieprasījumu publiskai piekļuvei dokumentiem par vienpadsmit politisko partiju darbības neseno apturēšanu Ukrainā. Eiropas Ārējās darbības dienests (EĀDD) identificēja divus dokumentus, kas attiecās uz sūdzības iesniedzēja pieprasījuma jomu. Dienests piešķīra piekļuvi viena dokumenta daļām un atteicās nodrošināt piekļuvi otram dokumentam. Šādi rīkojoties, tas piemēroja izņēmumus saskaņā ar ES tiesību aktiem par publisku piekļuvi dokumentiem, argumentējot, ka dokumentu atklāšana nelabvēlīgi ietekmētu sabiedrības intereses attiecībā uz aizsardzību un militāriem jautājumiem, kā arī starptautiskajām attiecībām. Sūdzības iesniedzējs uzskatīja, ka pastāv izteikta sabiedrības interese par dokumentu atklāšanu.

Ombudes izmeklēšanas grupa pārbaudīja dokumentu un saņēma papildu konfidenciālus skaidrojumus no EĀDD. Pamatojoties uz iepriekšminēto un apsverot plašo rīcības brīvību, kādu var izmantot ES iestādes, ja tās uzskata, ka tiek apdraudēta aizsardzība un militārie jautājumi, kā arī starptautiskās attiecības, ombude konstatēja, ka EĀDD lēmums par piekļuves atteikšanu nav bijis acīmredzami nepareizs. Turklāt, tā kā attiecīgās sabiedrības intereses nevar tikt aizstātas ar citām sabiedrības interesēm, ko uzskata par svarīgākām, ombude konstatēta, ka, kaut arī sūdzības iesniedzējs ir izvirzījis svarīgu jautājumu, viņa argumenti nebija pietiekami, lai attaisnotu izpaušanu. Ombude konstatēja, ka EĀDD ir pamatoti atteicis publisku piekļuvi pieprasītajam dokumentam. Tādēļ ombude konstatēja, ka nav pieļauta administratīva kļūme, un lietu slēdza.

Lieta attiecās uz lūgumu nodrošināt publisku piekļuvi Eiropas Savienības Satelītcentra (SatCen) rīcībā esošajiem dokumentiem par migrantu situāciju pie Baltkrievijas robežas. SatCen atteicās publiskot dokumentus, apgalvojot, ka dokumentu publiskošana varētu kaitēt sabiedrības interešu aizsardzībai saistībā ar aizsardzību un militārajiem jautājumiem, kā arī ES dalībvalstu starptautiskajām attiecībām.

Ombude konstatēja, ka SatCen ir pamatoti atteicies piešķirt publisku piekļuvi pieprasītajam dokumentam. Tādēļ ombude slēdza lietu ar secinājumu, ka administratīva kļūme nav pieļauta.

Ombude atzinīgi novērtēja SatCen lēmumu atjaunināt tā noteikumus par publisku piekļuvi dokumentiem un mudināja to ievērot viņas “īsos norādījumus ES pārvaldes iestādēm par politiku un praksi, kā īstenot tiesības uz publisku piekļuvi dokumentiem”.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents drawn up for the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy relating to funding of Palestinian civil society organisations. The European External Action Service (EEAS) identified excerpts of five documents as falling within the scope of the request. The EEAS denied access, arguing that disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue and obtained additional, confidential explanations from the EEAS. Based on this and considering the wide margin of discretion that EU institutions enjoy where they consider that international relations are at risk, the Ombudsman found that the EEAS’s decision to refuse access was not manifestly wrong. Given that the public interest at stake cannot be superseded by another public interest that is deemed more important, the Ombudsman closed the case finding no maladministration.

The case concerned how the European External Action Service’s handled a complaint concerning the pre-selection of candidates by Romania for the Junior Professionals in Delegations programme. The EEAS said that, according to the rules, it cannot review Member States’ assessments of candidates, unless there is a manifest error or substantiated allegations that the procedure was not fair, transparent and objective, which was not the case. The Ombudsman found the EEAS’s explanation of its role, as well as its assessment of this case, was reasonable.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

This decision is not published as there is a risk that the complainant may be identified from the specific circumstances of the case.

The case concerned the European Commission’s failure to reply in time to a request for public access to documents concerning an EU funded project on the legal framework and capability in terms of search and rescue of the Libyan Coast Guard.

The Ombudsman found that there were shortcomings in how the Commission dealt with the public access request with the result that it took too long. However, since the Ombudsman is now examining, from a systemic perspective, the time taken by the Commission to deal with requests for public access to documents, she considered that no further inquiries were justified in this case. She thus closed the inquiry.