Head of the team of the Secretary-General European Economic and Social Committee

 

Dear Mr X,

The Ombudsman has received a complaint against the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) concerning a request for public access to documents containing information on the allowances claimed by its members in the period since January 2019.

At the initial stage, the EESC provided the complainant with a document, namely a list of meetings for which allowances have been paid. However, it removed the names of the members who attended these meetings, as well as those meetings that it considered would allow for individual members to be identified. The EESC said that it had redacted this personal data in line with a decision of the Ombudsman concerning a similar access to documents request.^[1]

The complainant asked the EESC to review its decision, stressing that the EESC should disclose the names of the members concerned, as it had done so in the past.

The EESC maintained its decision, arguing that disclosure of the names, or any other information allowing for individual members to be identified, could undermine the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the persons concerned.^[2]

We have decided to open an inquiry into the complaint against the EESC’s decision to grant only partial access under Regulation 1049/2001.

Regulation 1049/2001 states that applications for access should be handled promptly. It is in line with this principle that the Ombudsman also seeks to deal with cases such as this as quickly as possible.

As a first step, we consider that it would be helpful to schedule a meeting between the EESC and the Ombudsman’s inquiry team at which we can discuss this case. The following elements should help inform the meeting discussions.

We note that the complainant, a journalist, has made a similar request for public access to documents in 2019. The EESC granted the complainant access, including to personal data, and the complainant used this information to write an article about the EESC remuneration system.

When making a new request for public access to documents in April 2021 (the current inquiry concerns this access request), the complainant assumed, based on his past experience with the EESC, that access would be granted. He did therefore not put forward an explicit necessity.

In its initial reply, the EESC did not indicate to the complainant that he needed to put forward a necessity in the public interest for the transfer of personal data and the complainant did not include such a necessity in his confirmatory application.

It is clear from his complaint to the Ombudsman that the complainant is seeking access to the data to verify whether the EESC members received subsistence allowances for travelling to Brussels. According to the EESC rules, a subsistence allowance is paid to all members that attend meetings, irrespective of whether they travel to Brussels. The complainant would like to know the names and the amounts received by the members to scrutinise the use of public resources. Having this data would allow him to pursue a public debate on the merits of the EESC remuneration system.

The Ombudsman has in the past taken the view that, to boost transparency and build citizens’ trust, the EESC should proactively publish more information regarding its members’ expenses.^[3]

We would appreciate it if, at the meeting, the EESC could explain its assessment of the access request, taking into account the necessity as presented by the complainant to the Ombudsman. Furthermore, we would be grateful if the EESC could explain why in this case it has taken a more restrictive approach than in the past.

Finally, the Ombudsman’s decision in case 1/2020/MIG should not be interpreted as suggesting that the members’ corresponding expenses should remain secret. The Ombudsman has, rather, encouraged the EESC to be transparent and to publish as much information as possible (as mentioned above).

In case 1/2020/MIG, which concerned a public access request to expenses incurred during a business trip of an EESC delegation to an event in China, the complainant already knew the names of the participants and the total costs of the trip. However, he was interested in receiving access to the flight details (individual flight costs and seating class) of the participants. The documents identified by the EESC as falling within the scope of the request were the individual flight tickets of the participants. It was in this context that the Ombudsman considered that the complainant has not demonstrated the need to access the flight tickets. After reviewing an additional document compiled by the EESC for the purpose of the inquiry, the Ombudsman considered that releasing an anonymised version of the document would satisfy the complainant’s request, while not undermining the protection of the participants’ personal data.

The inquiries officer responsible for the case, Ms Oana Marin, can be reached to arrange the details of the meeting, ideally to take place before 15 December 2021.

Should the EESC wish to provide any additional views in writing, we would be grateful if it can send these ahead of the meeting.^[4]

Yours sincerely,

 

Rosita Hickey
Director of Inquiries

Strasbourg, 30/11/2021

 

[1] Case 1/2020/MIG on the European Economic and Social Committee's refusal of public access to documents concerning travel expenses related to an official trip to China, available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/56210.

[2] Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001.

[3] See Ombudsman’s decision in case 1/2020/MIG, paragraphs 13-16

[4] If you wish to submit documents or information that you consider to be confidential, and which should not be disclosed to the complainant, please mark them ‘Confidential’. Information and documents of this kind will be deleted from the European Ombudsman’s files shortly after the inquiry has ended.