Vyhľadať vyšetrovania

The complainant, a journalist, asked the European Commission for public access to documents concerning the adoption of EU rules on real driving emissions values. The Commission refused to grant access. In doing so, it invoked an exception under the EU's legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure could undermine legal proceedings, as the matter had previously been subject to court proceedings and could be again in the future.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents in question and confirmed that they contain internal legal advice concerning a judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018. The Ombudsman found that, in view of the specific context of the case, it was reasonable for the Commission to assume that the same subject matter would be challenged in court again.

She therefore considered that the Commission was justified in protecting the confidentiality of four out of five documents at this stage, and concluded that there was no maladministration.

The fifth document is an official Commission decision to appeal to the Court. The Ombudsman’s view is that this document could be made public, in particular because the Commission’s arguments (as presented to the Court) are reflected in the publicly available opinion of the Advocate General. However, since this document was not the main document at issue of the complaint, the Ombudsman does not find it justified to prolong the inquiry into this matter. She trusts that the Commission will look at the document again and reconsider its position.

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision to recover funds from an organisation that carried out an EU-funded project relating to environmental protection and biodiversity in the Horn of Africa. The Commission sought to recover the funds following the findings of an audit report. The complainant contested this decision.

In the course of the inquiry, the Commission waived its decision to recover the funds granted for one of the costs. The Commission further explained why it had considered the other costs concerned as ineligible. The Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s explanations were reasonable and closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

Tento prípad sa týkal žiadosti o prístup verejnosti k dokumentom Európskeho úradu pre bezpečnosť potravín (EFSA) týkajúcim sa olova v strelive. Úradu EFSA trvalo vybavenie žiadosti viac ako sedem mesiacov, pričom lehotu viackrát predĺžil, čo sťažovateľovi zabránilo použiť dokumenty pri príprave príspevku do verejnej konzultácie organizovanej inou agentúrou EÚ.

Ombudsmanka začala vyšetrovanie a zistila nesprávny úradný postup, pokiaľ ide o spôsob, akým úrad EFSA vybavoval žiadosť sťažovateľa o prístup k dokumentom, a konkrétne, v súvislosti s nedodržaním lehôt stanovených v právnych predpisoch EÚ o prístupe verejnosti k dokumentom. Odporučila, aby úrad EFSA pri navrhovaní „spravodlivého riešenia“ prestal predlžovať stanovené lehoty nad 30 pracovných dní. Taktiež odporučila, aby úrad EFSA poskytol žiadateľom v počiatočnej fáze zoznam dokumentov, ktoré identifikuje v prípade, že je žiadosť o prístup formulovaná všeobecne.

Úrad EFSA na odporúčania ombudsmanky reagoval kladne a zaviazal sa zmeniť svoje pravidlá a postupy, aby zabezpečil rýchle vybavovanie žiadostí o prístup verejnosti k dokumentom. Ombudsmanka ukončila vyšetrovanie a uvítala pozitívnu reakciu úradu EFSA, ako aj kroky, ktoré už podnikol a ktoré plánuje podniknúť na vykonanie jej odporúčaní v praxi.