Ombudsman criticises Commission's refusal to disclose documents on UK opt-out from Charter of Fundamental Rights
The European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros,
has strongly criticised the European Commission's refusal to give
access to documents concerning its view of the UK opt-out from the EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights. This follows a complaint from the
European Citizen Action Service (ECAS), a Brussels-based NGO, which
wanted to find out why UK citizens do not enjoy the same fundamental
rights as other EU citizens. The Commission rejected the Ombudsman's
recommendation that it disclose the documents, without giving adequate
reasons.
Commission refused access to documents without giving valid reasons
ECAS lodged a complaint
with the Ombudsman about the Commission's refusal to give access to
five documents, drafted by its services and concerning the UK opt-out
from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The opt-out was a major issue
in the intergovernmental negotiations leading to the adoption of the
Lisbon Treaty and the documents were prepared by the Commission in that
context.
The Commission
explained its refusal by referring to the need to protect both the legal
advice it receives, as well as its internal decision-making process.
After inspecting the documents in question,
the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission's arguments for
non-disclosure were not convincing.
Mr Diamandouros stated:
"Public access to documents concerning how EU law is adopted is key to
winning the trust of European citizens. I therefore strongly regret the
Commission's refusal to give the public appropriate access to documents
concerning how one of the most important EU laws, namely, the Charter of
Fundamental Rights, was adopted".
Despite the
Ombudsman's recommendation that it make the documents in question
public, the Commission only gave partial access. As access to documents
is itself one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, and
as the Commission failed substantively to engage with certain of his
arguments, the Ombudsman concluded that such refusal constituted "a most
serious instance of maladministration".
