00:00Muzyka
00:08My guest today is the European Ombudswoman Teresa Ancinio.
00:12She leads the watchdog responsible for probing cases of bad administration across the EU institutions,
00:19including in response to citizens' complaints.
00:22She's approaching her one-year anniversary in the role
00:25and 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
00:45in terms of getting the institutions to be more accountable and more transparent?
00:50I believe that as European Ombudswoman in a very challenging time
00:56that actually we should always recognize, for the past eight, nine months,
01:03I have been concentrated in guaranteeing that I do follow my strategy
01:08in prioritizing individual complaints, allowing for fostering active citizenship and participation.
01:17And I truly believe in that, that the success of my mandate will be very much dependent
01:22on the success of the dialogues that I will entail with the European Union institutions,
01:27bodies, offices and agencies.
01:29I also started meeting, of course, not only the heads of the main institutions
01:34but also the agencies, going to the member states, also meeting NGOs
01:40and guaranteeing that everyone actually in these very challenging times
01:45recognize the European Ombudsman as a very important institution
01:48that, well, continues to monitor actively the European Union administration
01:54and in guaranteeing that the rules are respected, that citizens continue to participate
01:59in the decision-making process and, of course, that the high standards remain high.
02:03You 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
02:23is rolling back things like access to documents, transparency.
02:28Do 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 criticisms surrounding
02:42how the Commission handles access to documents requests.
02:46Allow me just to, on a bright side and positive note, to state that I do see that there is commitment
02:54as well from the Commission in guaranteeing that we are compliant, that the institutions are compliant
03:00and recognize that behind the access to documents requests 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.
03:17But, this said, there are a lot of challenges and we see in my office these challenges through the number of complaints
03:26that we've received exactly related to the access to documents.
03:30So, you're currently investigating how von der Leyen handled a request made by a journalist to release a signal message she received by the French President Emmanuel Macron
03:43discussing 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're 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.
04:04It's very important to come up with clear conclusions related to something that actually the Court of Justice
04:10already also pointed out, the importance of having good record management systems, document management systems
04:18with registration and retention that will allow, even in an event of access to documents, to be able to, on a case-by-case basis,
04:27understand 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.
04:43Should, 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?
04:54Again, it's 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.
05:23This 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.
05:36But then we have never seen those messages shared between the Pfizer CEO and von der Leyen
05:41relating to the COVID-19 vaccine contract.
05:45Is the Commission failing to learn its lessons here?
05:48Can 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 because it is also forward-looking
06:11to 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 particularly when you have an access to documents request,
06:22those documents should not just disappear, they should be retained for an analysis if they should be disclosed or not,
06:29if 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.
06:48Are you confident that these recommendations are being heard by the Commission?
06:52Quite honestly, what I see is the Commission already understanding that actually they need to guarantee that the procedure that they have for decision-making
07:01has to be transparent, inclusive and evidence-based.
07:05Because the number of articles, the number of media coverage that this Omnibus One package had already shows that the Commission has to do more.
07:15Because by doing more and investing in these transparency, accountability procedures, they will also push for what they really aim with the simplification.
07:23That is to guarantee that they boost competitiveness and development and 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, is 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 recognize that they should do more to be more transparent or more accountable,
08:03they 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,
08:15into 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 in terms of damaging the reputation of the EU as a whole.
08:49Past cases also show that.
08:52As well as it hinders the already very high standards that exist and 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 and that, of course, all the facts will be clear
09:19and that the institutions will also be transparent and collaborative in guaranteeing that, well,
09:23the public can continue to trust, of course, the European Union institutions.
09:27You have come under scrutiny recently for appointing your former Head of Cabinet to the most senior civil servant role in your institution,
09:36the European Ombudsman, which is the role of Secretary General.
09:40In hindsight, was this the right decision? Did 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. It 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 was a very transparent, rigorous and accountable procedure.
10:07But you were part of that selection procedure.
10:09I was part, but I was guaranteeing from the very beginning exactly this accountability with clear checks and balances
10:16and being very transparent and public about it.
10:19It is important exactly to state that because in the end of the day, I 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 in terms of checks and balances and guarantee of all ethical standards from the very beginning,
10:52having 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, even though I recognise that the procedure was sound in terms of legal accountability.
11:23What do you mean by what happened afterwards?
11:24In terms of the media coverage and the idea that, as 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, I think that for the future it is important also to reflect how I can safeguard as well the institution
11:46in these kind of procedures for any kind of perception that might exist.
11:51Teresa Angino, thank you so much.
11:53Yeah, thank you.
11:54Thank you.
Comments