00:00My guest today is the European Ombudswoman Teresa Ancino.
00:12She 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.
00:34So 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?
00:50I believe that as European Ombudswoman in very challenging times,
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 in prioritizing individual complaints,
01:12allowing for fostering active citizenship and participation.
01:17And 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
01:45recognize the European Ombudsman as a very important institution that continues to monitor actively the European Union administration
01:53and in guaranteeing that the rules are respected, that citizens continue to participate in the decision-making process
02:01and, 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,
02:19that she and her close circle of aides is 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 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 from the Commission
02:55in 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.
03:22And we see in my office these challenges through the number of complaints that we've received
03:26exactly 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.
03:55So, we are still analyzing.
03:56But, there is something that I can say and it is important.
03:58Of course, that I will look and I am interested in understanding exactly what happened.
04:02It is very important to come up with clear conclusions related to something that actually the Court of Justice
04:10has already also pointed out, the importance of having good record management systems, document management
04:18systems with 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.
04:43Should, especially if these messages relate to ongoing policy and political discussions,
04:48should 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,
04:59namely 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 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 is my objective, is to produce positive changes and allow constructively also for the Commission to reflect
06:00on their own systems of management of documents.
06:05I believe that it is, that's why I said it, it's in this case particularly important because it is also
06:11forward-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 particularly when you have an
06:21access to documents request, those documents should not just disappear, they should be retained for
06:27an analysis if they should be disclosed or not, if they should be considered documents or not.
06:31I want to move on to another topic. You recently found that the Commission had broken its own
06:39lawmaking standards when it pushed through proposals it considered urgent, including to simplify corporate
06:47sustainability rules. Are 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
06:58that the procedure that they have for decision-making has to be transparent, inclusive and evidence-based.
07:04because the number of articles, the number of media coverage that this Omnibus 1 package had already
07:12shows that the Commission has to do more. Because by doing more and investing in these transparency,
07:18accountability 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
07:28the citizens. So if you do not have that trust, I don't think that the objectives behind the simplification
07:34will comply. And do you think this case could have undermined trust, citizen trust in the EU
07:39institutions? Well, the only thing that I know is that I had the complaints and the complaints were quite
07:44huge and that's already a sign that you should do more. Actually, one of the things that my office,
07:50it's the mission of my office, is exactly to show to citizens that not only we exist and they can file
07:55their complaints to us, but also that institutions, when they recognize that they should do more to
08:01be more transparent or more accountable, they actually voluntarily do so.
08:06Your role often involves probing tendering processes. Now, there's an ongoing criminal investigation,
08:13which is clearly outside your mandate, into how the College of Europe was awarded a contract by the
08:19of the EU's diplomatic arm, the EEAS, and it involves very senior officials, including the former EU High
08:26Representative Federica Mogherini. What does this case say about integrity in the EU institutions?
08:35So, whenever you have these kind of allegations that are related to integrity issues, it is very
08:42important to acknowledge that you always have high risks in terms of damaging the reputation of the
08:47European Union as a whole. Past cases also show that, as well as it hinders the already very high
08:54standards that exist and efforts that actually institutions are doing to guarantee, you know,
08:59that they do have strong integrity frameworks. I believe that from this case, I can only hope,
09:09because this is the time for justice, I can only hope that it will be solved as fast as possible,
09:16and that, of course, all the facts will be clear and that the institutions will also be transparent
09:21and collaborative in guaranteeing that, well, the public can continue to trust, of course,
09:25the European Union institutions. You have come under scrutiny recently for appointing your former
09:31head of cabinet to the most senior civil servant role in your institution, the European Ombudsman,
09:37which is the role of secretary general. In hindsight, was this the right decision? Did it send the right
09:46message to citizens? First of all, it is important to state that it was not a promotion. It was a selection
09:53procedure. It was not dependent from any discretionary power for my part. And you're rightly pointing to the
10:01fact 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? I was part, but I was guaranteeing from the very
10:11beginning exactly this accountability with clear checks and balances and being very transparent
10:17and public about it. It 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, and you are seen as the woman who is
10:33meant to be working to erase this kind of culture. In hindsight, do you think it was the right move?
10:41To be very fair, the selection procedure was a strong procedure in terms of checks and balances
10:48and guarantee of all ethical standards from the very beginning, having a very independent selection
10:54board. I did not have the possibility to exclude people that would be illegible. All the criteria
11:02were public and all the procedure had a very clear timeline. So you're not concerned that this could
11:09undermine your reputation in any way? What 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
11:21in terms of legal accountability. What do you mean what happened afterwards?
11:25In terms of the media coverage and the idea that, as you were saying as a question of hindering the
11:33perception of a possible favouritism. What 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 how I can safeguard
11:45as well the institution in these kind of procedures for any kind of perception that might exist.
11:51Teresa Angino, thank you so much.
11:53Thank you.
Commenti