Tiftix ta’ inkjesti

The case concerned a request for public access to documents held by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) concerning return operations. The complainant specifically asked to receive the requested documents in a machine-readable format. Frontex disclosed the requested documents, but in a different format.

The Ombudsman asked Frontex to explain in more detail its reasons for providing the complainant with a non-machine readable format. In reply, Frontex disclosed the documents in a machine-readable file format.

Since Frontex settled the problem, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents concerning technology developed and military equipment produced as part of an EU-funded project in the defence industry. The European Commission refused access to the two documents it identified, arguing that full disclosure could undermine the public interest as regards public security, defence and military matters, the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual and the protection of commercial interests.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents in question and found that the Commission’s refusal to disclose them was justified due to their sensitive nature.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that the Commission had not acted with maladministration in this case.

The case concerned three requests for public access to documents concerning all EU Pilot procedures and five specific infringement procedures related to procurements in the defence sector. The Commission refused (full) access to the majority of the 153 documents it identified, arguing that full disclosure could undermine the public interest as regards public security, defence and military matters, the financial, monetary or economic policy of Member States, the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual and the protection of commercial interests. The Commission also redacted (parts of) some of the documents, arguing that those were outside the scope of the requests.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents in question and found that the Commission’s refusal to disclose the relevant parts of the documents was generally justified.

However, the Ombudsman expressed concerns regarding the delay incurred by the Commission in dealing with the requests and, once again, urged the Commission to deal with requests for public access to documents within the applicable deadlines.

The case concerned the European External Action Service’s (EEAS) refusal to give public access to documents related to the surveillance system used to secure its buildings. The EEAS argued that disclosure of the requested documents would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security.

The Ombudsman inquiry team met with representatives of the EEAS and inspected the documents to which access was denied. Based on the meeting and the inspection, the Ombudsman found that the EEAS’s decision to refuse access was reasonable, given the specific nature and content of the documents.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.