Chcete podať sťažnosť na inštitúciu alebo orgán EÚ?

Vyhľadať vyšetrovania

Textové vyhľadávanie

Typ dokumentu

Dotknutý orgán

Typ urovnania

Číslo prípadu

Jazyk

Rozmedzie dátumov

Kľúčové slová

Alebo skúste staré heslá (pred rokom 2016)

Vybavovanie žiadostí o informácie a prístup k dokumentom (transparentnosť)

Zobrazuje sa 1 – 20 z 686 výsledkov

Rozhodnutia vo veci 21/2016/JAP o zlyhaní Rady EÚ udeliť prístup k právnym stanoviskám k návrhom nariadení o zriadení európskej prokuratúry a Agentúry Európskej únie pre justičnú spoluprácu v trestných veciach (EUROJUST)

Štvrtok | 07 marca 2019

Zhrnutie sa týkalo zamietnutia Rady Európskej únie udeliť úplný prístup k právnym stanoviskám k legislatívnym návrhom nariadení o zriadení Európskej prokuratúry (EPPO) a Agentúry Európskej únie pre justičnú spoluprácu v trestných veciach (EUROJUST).

Počas vyšetrovania ombudsmanky Rada súhlasila s poskytnutím dvoch zo štyroch dokumentov, ale trvala na svojom odmietnutí poskytnúť v celom rozsahu dva zvyšné dokumenty, aj keď čiastočný prístup bol poskytnutý.

Ombudsmanka akceptuje, že odmietnutie poskytnutia právnych stanovísk v celom rozsahu bolo odôvodnené tým, že by sa tak ohrozila ochrana právneho poradenstva a súdneho konania. Prípad preto uzatvára so zistením, že nedošlo k nesprávnemu úradnému postupu, ale vyzýva Radu, aby preskúmala svoje odmietnutie so zreteľom na ďalší čas, ktorý uplynul.

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

Štvrtok | 21 decembra 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

Streda | 04 októbra 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.

Rozhodnutia vo veci 1959/2014/MDC o odmietnutí Európskej komisie udeliť verejný prístup k hodnotiacim formulárom udelenia, pokiaľ ide o žiadosti o spolufinancovanie mechanizmov na spracovanie záznamov o cestujúcich

Štvrtok | 13 júla 2017

Predmetná vec sa týkala odmietnutia Európskej komisie udeliť verejný prístup k hodnotiacim formulárom vypracovaným na posúdenie žiadostí členských štátov o spolufinancovanie vnútroštátnych systémov na spracovanie záznamov o cestujúcich (PNR[1]) Komisiou. Sťažnosť podal poslanec Európskeho parlamentu.

Vo veci odmietnutia prístupu k požadovaným hodnotiacim formulárom sa Komisia opierala o rozsudok Všeobecného súdu, ktorý uznal potrebu uchovania dôvernosti konaní hodnotiacich výborov v súvislosti s postupmi verejného obstarávania. V tej veci Všeobecný súd rozhodol, že zverejnením stanovísk členov hodnotiaceho výboru by sa ohrozila ich nezávislosť a tým by sa vážne ohrozil rozhodovací proces príslušnej inštitúcie. Sťažovateľ sa však domnieval, že tento rozsudok nie je možné uplatniť na postup hodnotenia týkajúci sa hodnotenia žiadostí o financovanie, ktoré predložili členské štáty.

Ombudsmanka tento prípad vyšetrila a zistila, že zamietnutie zverejnenia požadovaných dokumentov Komisiou nebolo opodstatnené. Okrem toho súhlasila s tým, že existuje nadradený verejný záujem na zverejnení požadovaných dokumentov. Ombudsmanka preto vydala odporúčanie Komisii, aby zverejnila požadované dokumenty (súhlasila však s tým, že mená hodnotiteľov môžu byť upravené).

Komisia odmietla prijať odporúčanie ombudsmanky bez toho, aby svoje stanovisko presvedčujúco odôvodnila. Ombudsmanka preto uzavrela vec s tým, že sa nezistil nesprávny úradný postup.

 

[1] Údaje z osobných záznamov o cestujúcich (PNR) sú informácie, ktoré poskytli cestujúci v priebehu objednávania a rezervácie leteniek a registrácie na lety, ako aj údaje zhromaždené leteckými prepravcami na ich vlastné obchodné účely. Obsahujú niekoľko rôznych druhov informácií, napríklad dátumy cesty, cestovnú trasu, informácie o letenke, kontaktné údaje, cestovnú agentúru, u ktorej sa let objednával, použitý spôsob platby, číslo sedadla a informácie o batožine. Údaje sú uchovávané v rezervačných a odletových kontrolných databázach leteckých spoločností.

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

Piatok | 13 januára 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

Streda | 11 januára 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

Pondelok | 19 decembra 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

Pondelok | 19 decembra 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.

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

Štvrtok | 24 novembra 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

Štvrtok | 10 novembra 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.