{"id":31200,"date":"2019-06-14T13:40:24","date_gmt":"2019-06-14T11:40:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.access-info.org\/?p=31200"},"modified":"2020-01-29T10:39:42","modified_gmt":"2020-01-29T09:39:42","slug":"european-ombudsman-european-commission-was-wrong-to-withhold-its-legal-advice-on-the-future-lobby-register-from-access-info","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.access-info.org\/es\/2019-06-14\/european-ombudsman-european-commission-was-wrong-to-withhold-its-legal-advice-on-the-future-lobby-register-from-access-info\/","title":{"rendered":"European Ombudsman: European Commission was wrong to withhold its legal advice on the future Lobby Register from Access Info"},"content":{"rendered":"

Madrid, 14 June 2019<\/em> \u2013 The European Ombudsman has found the European Commission guilty of maladministration for not releasing to Access Info the Commission\u2019s legal advice on the reform of the European Union\u2019s register of lobbyists, known as the Transparency Register.<\/p>\n

Today\u2019s decision by the Ombudsman comes after a three-year tussle over whether or not Access Info should have been provided with the Commission\u2019s analysis about the legal basis for regulating lobbying in Brussels, the world\u2019s second largest lobby capital after Washington.<\/p>\n

The initial request for information was made by Access Info in May 2016 at the height of discussions on whether the future lobby register would be voluntary or mandatory. The Commission refused to share the documents, arguing that it needed to protect ongoing decision making and legal advice.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe refusal prevented Access Info and other civil society organisation from being able to participate fully in the debate on an important topic: how to ensure transparency of corporate influence in Brussels,<\/em>\u201d said Helen Darbishire, Executive Director of Access Info.<\/p>\n

The Ombudsman has now concluded that this refusal was \u201cvery formalistic\u201d, that the Commission failed to raise compelling arguments as to why disclosure would undermine legal advice, and concludes that it is \u201csomewhat ironic that the Commission has failed to be as open and forthcoming as possible about the very measure aimed at promoting transparency as a means to achieve greater EU legitimacy<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Ombudsman also found that even if the exceptions had applied, there would still be an overriding public interest in disclosure, as the documents would have allow EU citizens to follow evolving discussions this important pro-transparency measure.<\/p>\n

Importantly, the Ombudsman argues that the nature of the agreement being discussed, known as an Inter-Institutional Agreement between the Commission, Council and Parliament, is akin to a legislative process, where the EU Treaties and Court of Justice of the European Union jurisprudence require particular openness.<\/p>\n

In an additional finding, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission breached procedural requirements because it repeatedly extended the time limit for responding \u2013 the final refusal to the 17 May 2016 request came on 5 October 2016 \u2013 and failed to provide detailed reasons as to why this was such an exceptional case that the extensions were needed.<\/p>\n

\u201cAccess Info welcomes this decision, which underlines the importance of transparency for participation in discussions on matters that go to the heart of ensuring accountability of EU decision making<\/em>,\u201d concluded Darbishire.<\/p>\n

Related documents<\/strong><\/p>\n