Background to the complaint

1. On 29 July 2018 the complainant made a request for public access to documents containing information about the membership of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority’s (EIOPA) working groups (committees, task forces, panels) and the membership of any other groups that might be operating under the EIOPA.

2. On 21 August 2018 the EIOPA refused access on the basis of the need to protect the privacy and integrity of the individuals concerned. At the same time the EIOPA provided a list of public links containing some information that was relevant to the complainant’s request (which identified the chairpersons of some the EIOPA’s working groups).

3. On 5 September 2018 the complainant replied to the EIOPA stating that he needed to have access to the data to complete his PhD thesis by allowing him to estimate how many public authorities' agents conduct work on EU financial regulation for EU institutions and authorities. In the same letter he specified that he did not need to have access to the names of the members, but only to information about how many officials from national authorities participated in EIOPA’s working groups and the names of the national authorities that employ them.

4. As this letter did not receive a reply, on 3 October 2018 the complainant wrote again to the EIOPA restating his arguments. He confirmed that his letter should be understood to be a request for review (a so called confirmatory application for access to documents).

5. On 23 October 2018 the EIOPA replied to the letter refusing access to the documents on the basis of the need to protect personal data.

6.  Dissatisfied with this decision, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman on 31 October 2018.

The Inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint that the EIOPA had wrongly refused access to documents containing information about the number of the members of the EIOPA’s working groups and the names of the national competent authorities that employ them.

The Ombudsman's proposal for a solution

8. During the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman noted that in his request for review the complainant clarified that he did not need to have access to the names of the members, but only to information about how many officials from national authorities participate in the EIOPA’s working groups, and the names of the national authorities for which they work. He also explained that this information would be used in his PhD thesis to estimate how many public authorities' agents conduct work for EU institutions and authorities on EU financial regulation.

9. The Ombudsman agrees that if any of the content of the documents could be linked to an identified or an identifiable person, for example if they would include names, that content would constitute “personal data” of the person concerned. In that event, such content could be released provided the person seeking access has demonstrated a necessity of having access to that personal data and provided there is no reason to assume that the data subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced.

10. However in this case the complainant clarified that he did not need access to the names of the members of the EIOPA working groups, but rather wished to receive information on the exact number of the members of these groups and on the national competent authorities where the members worked.

11. The Ombudsman found that information relating to the number of members of working groups and information on the national competent authorities where members are employed is not personal data as it cannot be linked to an identified or identifiable person. Documents in the possession of the EIOPA which contain such information could be provided to the complainant without infringing any data protection rules.

12. The Ombudsman thus proposed that the EIOPA should grant the complainant partial access to the documents

The Ombudsman's assessment after the proposal for a solution

13. On 10 December the EIOPA informed the Ombudsman that it provided partial access to documents which include information about how many officials from national authorities participated in the EIOPA’s working groups and the names of the national authorities that employ them, as requested by the complainant.

14. On 18 December the complainant confirmed to the Ombudsman’s inquiry team that he was fully satisfied with the response provided by the EIOPA.

15. The Ombudsman welcomes the EIOPA’s reply to her solution proposal. Since EIOPA accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal and granted partial disclosure to the documents requested by the complainant, the Ombudsman closed the case.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority has accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution.

The complainant and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 19/12/2018