On Wednesday 9 April, the European Ombudsman, Teresa Anjinho, took the view that a reform of European Union law governing access to documents of EU institutions should be “discussed seriously”, with the aim of increasing the transparency of the legislative and administrative processes at European level.
“There is a need to have more clarity on these rules“, said Ms Anjinho at her first press conference since taking office at the beginning of February (see EUROPE 13547/24). In her view, EU rules should adapt to the new digital environment. She took the example of artificial intelligence, which raises questions about the legitimacy of the use of data and the way in which decisions are taken at EU level.
According to the European body’s 2024 activity report, 42% of investigations carried out relate to access to documents of EU institutions. This shows that “we need to do more to fulfil high expectations”, insisted Ms Anjinho.
The European Ombudsman has warned that she will not hesitate to launch new investigations on her own initiative. One area of investigation could be that of “revolving door”, to ensure that there is clarity in the rules when leaving a position within an EU institution.
“The integrity” of players at European level will also be a priority, she said, as the “Qatargate” and “Huaweigate” scandals have damaged the reputation of the EU institutions. There is also regret that the European Ethics Body has still not been established, even though this body will not be able to conduct its own investigations.
Following revelations that a former Director-General of the Commission’s Transport Services had benefited from free travel on Qatar Airways while the EU institution was negotiating an aviation agreement with Qatar (see EUROPE 13136/13), the Ombudsman investigated how the European Commission assesses potential conflicts of interest linked to business travel paid for by third parties. Although the investigation did not reveal any concerning cases other than that of the former Director General, it did highlight shortcomings in the way that the EU institution records its assessment of the risk of conflicts of interest linked to business travel paid for by third parties.
When asked about the controversy surrounding European funding of NGOs, particularly environmental NGOs (see EUROPE 13616/20), Ms Anjinho did not adopt a clear position. She noted “financial shortcomings” that raise questions about the European Commission’s ability to supervise the funds that have been granted, and about “transparency” in the allocation of funds.
Finally, while not expressing an opinion on the merits of the regulatory simplification exercise currently underway at European level, Ms Anjinho nevertheless recommended that this exercise be monitored to ensure that it meets the requirements of fairness, impartiality and trust.
Read the 2024 activity report: https://aeur.eu/f/gcu (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)