00:00My guest today is the European Ombudswoman, Teresa Ancinho.
00:13She leads the watchdog responsible for probing cases of bad administration across the EU institutions,
00:20including in response to citizens' complaints.
00:23She's approaching her one-year anniversary in the role and previously served as Portugal's justice minister.
00:30European Ombudswoman, welcome to the show. Thank you for joining us.
00:33Thank you. Thank you so much for having me.
00:35So, as I was saying, you're approaching your one-year anniversary as Ombudswoman.
00:41Over the past 12 months, do you feel you've made big progress in terms of getting the institutions to be more accountable and more transparent?
00:49I believe that as European Ombudswoman, in very challenging times that actually we should always recognize,
01:00for the past eight, nine months, I have been concentrated in guaranteeing that I do follow my strategy
01:08in prioritizing individual complaints, allowing for fostering active citizenship and participation.
01:18And I truly believe in that, that the success of my mandate will be very much dependent on the success of the dialogues
01:24that I will entail with the European Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.
01:29I also started meeting, of course, not only the heads of the main institutions, but also the agencies,
01:36going to the member states, also meeting NGOs and guaranteeing that everyone actually in these very challenging times
01:45recognized the European Ombudsman as a very important institution that, well, continues to monitor actively
01:50the European Union administration and in guaranteeing that the rules are respected,
01:57that citizens continue to participate in the decision-making process and, of course, that the high standards remain high.
02:04You mentioned dialogue with the heads of the major institutions.
02:08If we look at the Commission, President Ursula von der Leyen has recently been criticized
02:14for what many feel is an opaque operation, that she and her close circle of aides is rolling back things
02:25like access to documents, transparency. Do you agree with that criticism?
02:30So, I believe you're mainly focusing on exactly the access to documents topic.
02:35And, well, I do recognize that we do have a lot of criticism surrounding how the Commission handles access to documents requests.
02:45Allow me just to, on a bright side and positive note, to state that I do see that there is commitment, as well,
02:55from the Commission in guaranteeing that we are compliant, that the institutions are compliant
03:00and recognize that behind the access to documents request is a fundamental right that is linked to transparency.
03:07And citizens, to participate, they need to have access to the information.
03:10So, if they do not have access to information, I believe that the criticisms that we hear are actually in order.
03:18But, this said, there are a lot of challenges, and we see in my office these challenges
03:24through the number of complaints that we've received exactly related to the access to documents.
03:29You're currently investigating how von der Leyen handled a request made by a journalist
03:37to release a signal message she received by the French President Emmanuel Macron
03:42discussing the ongoing EU-Mercosur trade deal.
03:49What have you found in terms of how von der Leyen dealt with that request?
03:53So, the case is still ongoing, so we are still analyzing, but there is something that I can say, and it is important.
03:59Of course, that I will look, and I am interested in understanding exactly what happened.
04:03It is very important to come up with clear conclusions
04:07related to something that actually the Court of Justice already also pointed out,
04:11the importance of having good record management systems, document management systems,
04:19with registration and retention that will allow, even in an event of access to documents,
04:25to be able to, on a case-by-case basis, understand what are the documents that should be released.
04:30We know in this case that you found that the Commission had, the Commission President, rather, von der Leyen,
04:37had the disappearing messages function activated on her signal app, which means that she cannot retrieve them.
04:44Should, especially if these messages relate to ongoing policy and political discussions,
04:49should the Commission President be keeping those messages and not auto-deleting them?
04:53Again, it is a question of transparency and accountability in a very challenging time with new tools,
05:00namely the WhatsApp messages, the signal, or whatever the system that you use to exchange messages.
05:05If they are related to decision-making processes, they are documents. That is very clear.
05:10And if they are, if they have this possibility to be documents and be related to this decision-making process,
05:16it is very important to guarantee that you have a management system of registration and retention of these documents.
05:22This case bears resemblance to the very high-profile so-called Pfizer-Gate case,
05:29where the EU court actually found that the Commission was violating its own transparency rules.
05:37But then we've never seen those messages shared between the Pfizer CEO and von der Leyen relating to the COVID-19 vaccine contracts.
05:45Is the Commission failing to learn its lessons here?
05:47Can recommendations from you as the Ombudswoman change the way that they operate, do you think?
05:53That's my objective, is to produce positive changes and allow constructively also for the Commission to reflect on their own systems of management of documents.
06:05I believe that it is, that's why I said it's in this case particularly important,
06:10because it is also forward-looking to guarantee that what happened in the past does not happen in the future.
06:15And we already had cases where that was also stated in the sense that,
06:20particularly when you have an access to documents request, those documents should not just disappear,
06:25they should be retained for an analysis if they should be disclosed or not,
06:30if they should be considered documents or not.
06:32I want to move on to another topic.
06:35You recently found that the Commission had broken its own lawmaking standards when it pushed through proposals it considered urgent,
06:45including to simplify corporate sustainability rules.
06:49Are you confident that these recommendations are being heard by the Commission?
06:53Quite honestly, what I see is the Commission already understanding that actually they need to guarantee
06:58that the procedure that they have for decision-making has to be transparent, inclusive and evidence-based,
07:05because the number of articles, the number of media coverage that this Omnibus 1 package had
07:11already shows that the Commission has to do more,
07:14because by doing more and investing in these transparency, accountability procedures,
07:20they will also push for what they really aim with the simplification,
07:23that is to guarantee that they boost competitiveness and development,
07:26and for that they need the trust of the citizens.
07:29So if you do not have that trust, I don't think that the objectives behind the simplification will comply.
07:35And do you think this case could have undermined trust, citizen trust in the EU institutions?
07:40Well, the only thing that I know is that I had the complaints, and the complaints were quite huge,
07:44and that's already a sign that you should do more.
07:48Actually, one of the things that my office, it's the mission of my office,
07:51is exactly to show to citizens that not only we exist and they can file their complaints to us,
07:57but also that institutions, when they recognise that they should do more,
08:01to be more transparent or more accountable, they actually voluntarily do so.
08:06Your role often involves probing tendering processes.
08:10Now, there's an ongoing criminal investigation, which is clearly outside your mandate,
08:14into how the College of Europe was awarded a contract by the EU's diplomatic arm, the EEAS,
08:21and it involves very senior officials, including the former EU High Representative Federica Mogherini.
08:28What does this case say about integrity in the EU institutions?
08:34So, whenever you have these kind of allegations that are related to integrity issues,
08:42it is very important to acknowledge that you always have high risks
08:45in terms of damaging the reputation of the EU as a whole.
08:49Past cases also show that, as well as it hinders the already very high standards that exist
08:55and efforts that actually institutions are doing to guarantee that they do have strong integrity frameworks.
09:04I believe that from this case, I can only hope, because this is the time for justice,
09:11I can only hope that it will be solved as fast as possible
09:16and that, of course, all the facts will be clear
09:19and that the institutions will also be transparent and collaborative
09:22in guaranteeing that, well, the public can continue to trust, of course, the European Union institutions.
09:28You have come under scrutiny recently for appointing your former head of cabinet
09:32to the most senior civil servant role in your institution, the European Ombudsman,
09:37which is the role of Secretary-General.
09:40In hindsight, was this the right decision?
09:44Did it send the right message to citizens?
09:48First of all, it is important to state that it was not a promotion.
09:52It was a selection procedure that was not dependent from any discretionary power from my part.
09:59And you're rightly pointing to the fact that allows me to say that this procedure
10:03was a very transparent, rigorous and accountable procedure.
10:07But you were part of that selection procedure.
10:08I was part, but I was guaranteeing from the very beginning
10:12exactly this accountability with clear checks and balances
10:15and being very transparent and public about it.
10:19It is important exactly to state that because in the end of the day,
10:22I also recognise that there are always these problems related to the perceptions.
10:27There is a sense that there was a favouritism aspect here
10:31and you are seen as the woman who is meant to be working to erase this kind of culture.
10:37In hindsight, do you think it was the right move?
10:40To be very fair, the selection procedure was a strong procedure
10:46in terms of checks and balances and guarantee of all ethical standards from the very beginning,
10:51having a very independent selection board.
10:55I did not have the possibility to exclude people that would be illegible.
11:01All the criteria were public and all the procedure had a very clear timeline.
11:07So you're not concerned that this could undermine your reputation in any way?
11:11What I can say is actually what I say to the other institutions.
11:15I'm not immune to what happened afterwards,
11:17even though I recognise that the procedure was sound in terms of legal accountability.
11:23What do you mean by what happened afterwards?
11:25In terms of the media coverage and the idea that,
11:29as you were saying as a question of hindering the perception of a possible favouritism,
11:36what is important to state here is that I'm not immune to that
11:40and of course that I think that for the future it is important also to reflect
11:44how I can safeguard as well the institution in these kind of procedures
11:48for any kind of perception that might exist.
11:51Teresa Angino, thank you so much.
Comments