The complainant, a non-governmental organisation, asked the European Commission to grant public access to the impact assessments and opinions of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board regarding the envisaged revisions of the EU regulations on chemical substances ('REACH') and mercury. The Commission initially refused to disclose any documents relating to the Mercury Regulation and only heavily redacted versions of the requested documents regarding the REACH Regulation. In doing so, the Commission invoked exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests and an ongoing decision-making process.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission granted full public access to the documents concerning the Mercury Regulation, as the decision-making process had concluded, but maintained its position on the documents concerning the REACH Regulation.

The Ombudsman was not convinced by the Commission’s arguments that disclosure would seriously undermine the interests protected by the exceptions set out in the EU legislation on public access to documents. She noted that the EU Courts have repeatedly dismissed similar arguments and reiterated her view that it is crucial that citizens have timely public access to legislative documents, so that they can exercise their democratic right to influence EU law making.

Therefore, the Ombudsman took the view that the Commission’s refusal to grant full public access to the requested documents constituted maladministration. She recommended that the Commission review its decision and grant full public access to the requested documents. The Commission refused to do so, so the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of maladministration.