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

Comunicação

Ou experimentar palavras-chave antigas (antes de 2016)

A apresentar 1 - 20 de 63 resultados

Decision in case 1498/2019/NH on the European Parliament not sending its reply to an access to documents request by e-mail

Quinta-Feira | 28 maio 2020

The case concerned the refusal by the European Parliament to send a decision refusing public access to documents by e-mail.

The Ombudsman found that Parliament’s reply to the complainant was reasonable in the given context, as the complainant had already received the decision by registered post.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there had been no maladministration by Parliament in this case.

Decisão no caso 1484/2019/UNK Tratamento dado pela Comissão Europeia a um pedido de acesso público integral a projetos de um artigo sobre a diretiva relativa aos direitos de autor publicado no sítio Web da Comissão

Segunda-Feira | 02 dezembro 2019

O caso dizia respeito à decisão da Comissão Europeia de ocultar os nomes dos membros do pessoal da Comissão de um documento antes de conceder ao queixoso acesso público ao mesmo.

A Provedora de Justiça considerou correta a decisão da Comissão de ocultar os nomes. Por conseguinte, encerrou o inquérito, tendo concluído pela inexistência de má administração.

Decisão no caso 552/2018/MIG sobre a recusa da Comissão Europeia em conceder acesso público a documentos relativos à «lei das redes» alemã

Quarta-Feira | 20 novembro 2019

O caso dizia respeito a um pedido de acesso público a documentos na posse da Comissão Europeia relativos à «lei das redes» alemã, uma lei nacional destinada a combater as notícias falsas nas redes sociais.

A Provedora de Justiça apresentou uma proposta de solução, solicitando à Comissão que reconsiderasse a sua recusa (parcial) de conceder acesso público aos documentos. A Comissão não respondeu no prazo fixado pela Provedora de Justiça. Em seguida, a Provedora de Justiça emitiu uma recomendação à Comissão.

A Comissão respondeu que não aceitava a recomendação da Provedora de Justiça.

A Provedora lamenta que a Comissão não tenha seguido a sua recomendação. Mantém as suas conclusões em matéria de má administração.

Decision in case 1731/2018/FP on the refusal by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency to grant public access to the documents submitted by a public undertaking for a funding approval in the context of a call for proposals by the Connecting Europe Facility

Sexta-Feira | 04 outubro 2019

The case concerned the refusal by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) to grant public access to documents submitted by a national cybersecurity authority that was seeking funding from INEA.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and proposed that INEA should partially disclose the requested documents, redacting only information that it considers to be genuinely commercially sensitive or personal data.

INEA rejected the Ombudsman’s proposal, arguing that most of the information that could be disclosed was already in the public domain and the proposed partial disclosure would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on INEA. It also said that it accepted the arguments of the national cybersecurity authority regarding the likely damage disclosure would cause to its commercial interests.

The Ombudsman found INEA’s refusal to grant even partial access to the requested documents to be maladministration and recommended that INEA partially disclose the relevant Grant application.

INEA rejected the Ombudsman’s recommendation. Consequently, the Ombudsman now closes the case, confirming her finding of maladministration.

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 552/2018/MIG on the European Commission’s refusal of public access to documents concerning the German Network Enforcement Act

Terça-Feira | 11 junho 2019

The case concerned a refusal by the Commission, in 2017, to give a Member of the European Parliament public access to Commission documents regarding a new German social media law. The complainant considered that the Commission had failed to identify all the documents falling within the scope of her request. Regarding those documents it did identify, she considered that the Commission had wrongly redacted the documents.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had failed to identify all the documents falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. She also found that the redactions made by the Commission were excessive. She thus proposed that the Commission reassess the scope of the request and reconsider its decision to (partially) deny access to the identified documents.

The Commission did not follow this solution proposal. As the Ombudsman considers the Commission’s handling of the complainant’s access request to constitute maladministration, she makes a corresponding recommendation and expresses her concern at the inordinate length of time the Commission has taken in dealing with this matter.

Decision in case 2124/2017/KT on the treatment of certain journalists by the European Parliament’s Information Office in Cyprus

Quinta-Feira | 25 abril 2019

The complaint was about how the European Parliament’s Information Office in Cyprus selected journalists to travel to a conference in Brussels organised by Parliament. The complainant considered that the Information Office´s outreach policy is not transparent, especially when it comes to selecting journalists to travel abroad to cover its activities.

The Ombudsman found that Parliament’s criteria for selecting journalists were reasonable and concluded that there was no maladministration.