Tem uma queixa contra uma instituição ou organismo da UE?

Procurar inquéritos

Busca de texto

Tipo de documento

Instituição em causa

Tipo de acordo

Número do caso

Língua

Extensão de datas

Palavras-chave

Ou experimentar palavras-chave antigas (antes de 2016)

A apresentar 1 - 20 de 686 resultados

Decisão no caso 21/2016/JAP relativo à não concessão, por parte do Conselho da UE, de acesso aos pareceres jurídicos sobre a proposta de regulamento que institui a Procuradoria Europeia e a proposta de regulamento que cria a Agência Europeia para a Cooperação Judiciária Penal (Eurojust)

Quinta-Feira | 07 março 2019

O caso dizia respeito à recusa, por parte do Conselho da União Europeia, de conceder pleno acesso aos pareceres jurídicos sobre as propostas legislativas de um regulamento que institui a Procuradoria Europeia e um regulamento que cria a Agência Europeia para a Cooperação Judiciária Penal (Eurojust).

No decurso do inquérito da provedora de Justiça, o Conselho aceitou divulgar dois dos quatro documentos, mantendo, contudo, a sua recusa em divulgar na íntegra os dois documentos restantes, embora concedendo um acesso parcial aos mesmos.

A provedora de Justiça aceita que a recusa em divulgar os pareceres jurídicos na íntegra se justifica pelo facto de comprometer a proteção do aconselhamento jurídico e dos processos judiciais. Por conseguinte, encerra o caso concluindo pela inexistência de má administração, mas convida o Conselho a rever a sua recusa tendo em conta a passagem do tempo.

Decision in case 66/2016/DK on the European Research Council Executive Agency’s action concerning a request for access to documents

Quinta-Feira | 21 dezembro 2017

The case concerned the complainant’s request for access to two e-mails sent from the private e-mail account of the President of the Governing Board of the European Research Council Executive Agency to the members of the Scientific Council of the Agency. When the Agency refused access on the basis that the two e-mails were not in its possession as they were sent from a private account, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the issue, after which the President of the Governing Board provided the Agency with copies of the two e-mails. Thus, the Agency could assess the complainant’s request for access to the e-mails under Regulation 1049/2001[1]. The Agency then granted the complainant partial access to the documents. The Ombudsman obtained full copies of the two e-mails and was able to verify that the redactions made in the copies disclosed to the complainant were justified.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 709/2015/MDC on the Commission's refusal to grant public access to drafts of the final Impact Assessment Report accompanying its proposal for a Directive amending the Fuel Quality and Renewable Energy Directives

Quarta-Feira | 04 outubro 2017

The case concerned the Commission’s refusal to grant public access to draft versions of an Impact Assessment Report (IAR) on indirect land-use change related to biofuels (ILUC). Disclosure of the documents was refused on the ground that it would undermine the Commission’s decision-making process. The complainant, a group of organisations, considered that it should be granted access to the documents it requested.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue. She noted that in September 2015, Parliament and Council adopted Directive 2015/1513. That Directive was based on the Commission’s legislative proposal to which the impact assessment report, the draft versions of which were at issue in this case, was attached. The Ombudsman therefore proposed that, in light of these new circumstances, the Commission grant public access to the requested documents. The Commission disagreed, arguing that there had been no maladministration on its part. It however invited the complainant to make a new request for access to documents, in light of the new circumstances. The complainant later informed the Ombudsman that, following a new request for access to documents, the Commission granted access to the documents it had requested. The Ombudsman thus closed the case with a finding that no further inquiries into the complaint were justified. She also pointed out that the Ombudsman is entitled to ask an institution to take into consideration, when responding to a proposal for a solution of the Ombudsman in an access to documents case, new arguments as to why a document should be released.

Decisão no caso 1959/2014/MDC - Resumo da decisão no caso 1959/2014/MDC sobre a recusa da Comissão Europeia de conceder acesso público aos formulários de avaliação relativos a candidaturas à concessão de cofinanciamento de mecanismos para o tratamento de registos de identificação dos passageiros

Quinta-Feira | 13 julho 2017

O caso dizia respeito à recusa da Comissão Europeia de conceder acesso público a formulários de avaliação elaborados para examinar as candidaturas dos Estados-Membros a cofinanciamento da Comissão de sistemas nacionais de tratamento de registos de identificação dos passageiros (PNR[1]). A queixa foi apresentada por um deputado ao Parlamento Europeu.

Ao negar o acesso aos formulários de avaliação pedidos, a Comissão apoiou-se num acórdão do Tribunal Geral que reconhecia a necessidade de manter a confidencialidade dos processos dos comités de avaliação relativamente a procedimentos de concurso. Nesse caso, o Tribunal deliberou que a divulgação de pareceres dos membros do comité de avaliação comprometeria a sua independência e, por conseguinte, prejudicaria seriamente o processo de tomada de decisões da instituição em causa. O queixoso considerou, no entanto, que este acórdão não era aplicável a um procedimento de avaliação relativo ao exame de candidaturas a financiamento apresentadas por Estados-Membros.

A Provedora de Justiça procedeu a uma averiguação e considerou que a recusa da Comissão de divulgar os documentos solicitados era injustificada. Além disso, concordou que havia um interesse público superior na divulgação dos documentos solicitados. Por conseguinte, a Provedora de Justiça dirigiu uma recomendação à Comissão no sentido da disponibilização dos documentos solicitados (no entanto, concordou que os nomes dos avaliadores podiam ser suprimidos).

A Comissão recusou aceitar a recomendação da Provedora de Justiça sem apresentar motivos convincentes para a sua posição. Tendo em atenção o exposto, a Provedora de Justiça encerrou o caso, tendo concluído pela existência de má administração.

 

[1] Os dados dos registos de identificação dos passageiros (PNR) são informações prestadas pelos passageiros durante a reserva e marcação de bilhetes e quando fazem o registo de embarque em voos, bem como recolhidas pelas transportadoras aéreas para fins comerciais das mesmas. Contêm vários tipos diferentes de informações, tais como datas de viagem, itinerário, informações relativas ao bilhete, dados de contacto, agente de viagens através do qual o voo foi reservado, meios de pagamento utilizados, número do lugar e informações relativas às bagagens. Os dados são armazenados nas bases de dados de reserva e controlo de partida das companhias aéreas.

Decision in case 1102/2016/JN on the Commission’s failure to reply to correspondence and to fully disclose a document

Sexta-Feira | 13 janeiro 2017

The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s correspondence in the context of a financial audit at the Member State level. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the Commission replied. It disclosed the document requested by the complainant but redacted some personal data (names of physical persons). The Ombudsman found that the Commission correctly justified the redaction under Regulation 45/2001.

Decision in case 739/2016/JAP concerning the European Union Intellectual Property Office’s refusal to grant access to a downloadable version of its case law database

Quarta-Feira | 11 janeiro 2017

The case concerned the handling of a request for information as how to obtain a downloadable version of a case law database held by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’). The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and asked EUIPO to better explain its reasons why it could not comply with the request. The EUIPO’s explanation was accurate and reasonable. Thus, the case was closed with the finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 393/2015/MDC on the European Commission’s refusal to grant full public access to evaluation documents concerning a public procurement process

Segunda-Feira | 19 dezembro 2016

The complaint, submitted by the NGO Access Info Europe, concerns the European Commission's allegedly wrongful refusal to grant full public access to evaluation documents concerning a public procurement process for the 'Rehabilitation and extension of the waste water treatment plant of Subotica' (Serbia). The disclosure of the documents was refused on the basis of Article 4(1)(b) (the protection of personal data), Article 4(2) (the protection of commercial interests) and Article 4(3) (the protection of the decision-making process) of Regulation 1049/2001. The complainant considered that it should be granted full access to the evaluation documents.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that there was no maladministration in the Commission's conduct.  However, she suggests that the Commission should systematically obtain, prior to their appointment, the consent of evaluation committee members in procurement processes to the disclosure of their names. Disclosure of their names at the conclusion of the evaluation process should be considered a condition of appointment to such a committee.

Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 1206/2014/PD concerning the European Commission’s refusal to disclose the names of officials in a State aid case

Segunda-Feira | 19 dezembro 2016

The case concerned a refusal by the Commission to disclose the names of staff who had worked on a Commission State aid investigation. In the course of the inquiry the Ombudsman obtained the views of the Commission, the complainant and the European Data Protection Supervisor.

The question of whether the refusal to disclose the names was right hinged upon Article 8 of Regulation 45/2001 on Data Protection. Under that provision the person asking for disclosure must first show the necessity of disclosing the names to that person. If that test is met, the public authority must still establish whether the legitimate interests of the staff members would be affected by the disclosure of their names and, if so, whether those legitimate interests were more important than the necessity put forward by the person asking for the disclosure of the names.  

While holding that the Commission should not apply Article 8 in a restrictive manner when names of staff are at issue, the Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration on the part of the Commission in refusing to disclose the names of the staff members at issue.

Transparency of the Eurogroup

Quinta-Feira | 01 dezembro 2016

Decision in case 1171/2016/EIS on the Commission’s handling of correspondence concerning alleged illegalities committed by national courts in Estonia

Quinta-Feira | 24 novembro 2016

The case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s letter concerning alleged illegalities committed by national courts in Estonia. In that letter, the complainant also criticised the Commission for not taking any action. The Commission explained that it has no competence to intervene in the matter. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission’s explanations were correct, helpful and in line with its statutory powers. The case was thus closed as settled.

Decision of the European Ombudsman in case 789/2016/EIS concerning the EEAS’ handling of a request for public access to the “Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement” between the EU and Cuba

Quinta-Feira | 10 novembro 2016

The case concerned the handling by the European External Action Service (EEAS) of the complainant’s request for public access to the “Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement” between the EU and Cuba. In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the EEAS released the document. As a result, the Ombudsman closed the case as settled.