Brussels, 11/04/2014 (Agence Europe) - On Friday 11 April, the European Commission spoke of legal reasons as the justification for its refusal to publish four documents linked to the ousting of the former European commissioner for health, John Dalli from Malta.
From our point of view, we cannot publish the documents because they are part of a case at the Court of Justice of the European Union, said a European Commission spokesperson. Recalling that the Commission had already published some documents, the spokesperson said that the Commission also wanted to protect the investigation being conducted by the Maltese authorities.
The same day, European Ombudsman Emma O'Reilly called on the Commission to publish two letters and two internal notes relating to the ousting of the former commissioner in October 2012. “The Commission's arguments for refusing to give access are not convincing. Releasing the documents would reassure the public that the Commission dealt very seriously with this case and set an example of transparency for future cases of great public interest”, O'Reilly stated in a press release. This request comes as part of a procedure in which the Commission has until the end of July to present its detailed observations before the ombudsman gives her definitive recommendations.
In January 2013, the Corporate Europe Observatory NGO sent a complaint to the ombudsman about the Commission's refusal to publish two letters from Dalli to European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, as well as two internal notes concerning meetings between Barroso and Dalli.
The ombudsman has inspected these documents and concluded that the Commission's arguments are not convincing. The documents have not been sent to the Maltese authorities as evidence for their investigation as provided for in the dossier of their investigation, nor do they contain any information that is not already in the public domain. In O'Reilly's opinion, the Commission has not made clear how disclosure of the documents would have undermined the investigation by the Maltese authorities.
At the time Dalli was ousted from office, the Commission spoke in particular of unambiguous circumstantial evidence of Dalli's role in a case of peddling influence on European tobacco legislation. The snus producer Swedish Match said it had been asked to pay €60 million in exchange for an amendment to tobacco legislation in Swedish Match's favour. In the Commission's view, it was up to the Maltese judiciary to rule on this money. In June 2013, the Maltese judiciary exonerated Dalli. Grey areas persist in the case, as they do on the effects of tobacco industry lobbying at the top of the Commission. (LC with MB)