Meklēt izmeklēšanas

The complainant requested public access to documents concerning contingency and preparedness measures related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The European Central Bank (ECB) refused public access to the two documents it identified, relying on a provision in the Treaties which requires that the proceedings of its Governing Council not be made public. The ECB also invoked several exceptions under its rules on public access to documents, including that full disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards the financial, monetary or economic policy of the Union and international financial relations.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue. Based on this inspection and considering the wide margin of discretion that the ECB enjoys where it considers that the public interest as regards the Union’s international financial relations is at risk, the Ombudsman found that the ECB’s decision to refuse access to one of the requested documents was not manifestly wrong. As regards the other document, the Ombudsman considered that the ECB’s reliance on the confidentiality of the proceedings of the Governing Council meetings, as laid down in the Treaties, was justified.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

The complainant, a journalist, sought public access to all documents that Frontex had disclosed, following requests for public access, in the period from 2016 to 2018, and since November 2020 until the day of his request in December 2021. He also sought access to the requests made.

Frontex considered the request voluminous and suggested to the complainant that he split the request into several individual applications to be dealt with consecutively. The complainant refused and turned to the Ombudsman.

In the course of the inquiry the complainant limited his request to the documents already disclosed, which Frontex transmitted to him, albeit with some delay. Therefore, and although the Ombudsman is not convinced that Frontex’s treatment of the request was in line with the standards that citizens are entitled to expect from EU authorities, she decided to close the case. However, she asked Frontex to report to her on how in the future, it will make available in its public register documents that have been disclosed following public access requests.

 

The case concerned a request by two researchers for public access to documents related to the informal agreements on return and readmission of irregular migrants that the EU has concluded with six non-EU countries. The Council of the EU refused access, arguing that disclosure could undermine international relations.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue and obtained additional explanations from the Council, including confidential information. Based on this and considering the wide margin of discretion that EU institutions enjoy where they consider that the public interest as regards international relations is at risk, the Ombudsman found that the Council’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. That said, every effort should be made to reassure the public that the fundamental rights of migrants are respected and adequate safeguards are in place in this process.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents related to an informal agreement on return and readmission of irregular migrants that the EU concluded with the Gambia. The Commission refused access, arguing that disclosure could undermine international relations.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the document at issue as well as, in the context of a parallel inquiry, five similar agreements with other non-EU countries and related documents. Based on these inspections and considering the wide margin of discretion that EU institutions enjoy where they consider that the public interest as regards international relations is at risk, the Ombudsman found that the Commission’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. She noted, however, that every effort should be made to reassure the public that the fundamental rights of migrants are sufficiently protected and adequate safeguards are in place in this process.