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,
01:12allowing for fostering active citizenship and participation.
01:17And I truly believe in that, that the success of my mandate
01:21will 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,
01:35but also the agencies, going to the member states,
01:37also meeting NGOs and guaranteeing that everyone actually in these very challenging times
01:45recognized the European Ombudsman as a very important institution
01:48that continues to monitor actively the European Union administration
01:54and in guaranteeing that the rules are respected,
01:57that citizens continue to participate in the decision-making process
02:01and, 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,
02:10President Ursula von der Leyen has recently been criticized
02:14for what many feel is an opaque operation,
02:20that she and her close circle of aides
02:23is rolling back things like access to documents, transparency.
02:28Do you agree with that criticism?
02:29So, I believe you're mainly focusing on exactly the access to documents topic.
02:36And, well, I do recognize that we do have a lot of criticisms
02:41surrounding how the Commission handles access to documents requests.
02:46Allow me just to, on a bright side and positive note,
02:51to 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
03:03is 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,
03:13I believe that the criticisms that we hear are actually in order.
03:17But, this said, there are a lot of challenges.
03:22And we see in my office these challenges
03:24through the number of complaints that we've received
03:26exactly related to the access to documents.
03:29You're currently investigating
03:31how 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,
03:56but there is something that I can say and it is important.
03:59Of course, that I will look and I am interested in understanding
04:02exactly what happened.
04:03It's very important to come up with clear conclusions
04:07related to something that actually the Court of Justice
04:10already also pointed out.
04:11The importance of having good record management systems,
04:16document management systems,
04:19with registration and retention
04:21that will allow, even in an event of access to documents,
04:25to be able to, on a case-by-case basis,
04:28understand what are the documents that should be released.
04:30We know in this case that you found that the Commission had,
04:35the Commission President, rather, von der Leyen,
04:37had the disappearing messages function activated on her signal app,
04:42which means that she cannot retrieve them.
04:44Should, especially if these messages relate to ongoing policy
04:48and political discussions,
04:49should the Commission President be keeping those messages
04:52and not auto-deleting them?
04:54Again, it's a question of transparency and accountability
04:56in a very challenging time with new tools,
05:00namely the WhatsApp messages, the signal,
05:02or whatever the system that you use to exchange messages.
05:05If they are related to decision-making processes,
05:08they are documents.
05:09That is very clear.
05:10And if they are, if they have this possibility
05:12to be documents and be related to this decision-making process,
05:16it is very important to guarantee
05:17that you have a management system
05:19of registration and retention of these documents.
05:23This case bears resemblance to the very high-profile
05:26so-called Pfizer-Gate case,
05:29where the EU court actually found
05:32that the Commission was violating its own transparency rules.
05:37But then we've never seen those messages
05:39shared between the Pfizer CEO and von der Leyen
05:41relating to the COVID-19 vaccine contracts.
05:44Is the Commission failing to learn its lessons here?
05:48Can recommendations from you as the Ombudswoman
05:50change the way that they operate, do you think?
05:53That's my objective, is to produce positive changes
05:57and allow constructively also for the Commission
05:59to reflect on their own systems of management of documents.
06:05I believe that it is, that's why I said,
06:08it's in this case particularly important
06:10because it is also forward-looking
06:11to guarantee that what happened in the past
06:13does not happen in the future.
06:15And we already had cases where that was also stated
06:18in the sense that particularly when you have
06:21and access to documents requests,
06:23those documents should not just disappear.
06:25They should be retained for an analysis
06:28if 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
06:37had broken its own lawmaking standards
06:41when it pushed through proposals it considered urgent,
06:45including to simplify corporate sustainability rules.
06:49Are you confident that these recommendations
06:51are being heard by the Commission?
06:53Quite honestly, what I see is the Commission
06:55already understanding that actually they need to guarantee
06:58that the procedure that they have for decision-making
07:01has to be transparent, inclusive and evidence-based
07:05because the number of articles,
07:07the number of coverage, media coverage
07:09that this Omnibus 1 package had
07:11already shows that the Commission has to do more
07:14because by doing more and investing
07:16in these transparency, accountability procedures,
07:19they will also push for what they really aim
07:22with the simplification,
07:23that is to guarantee that they boost competitiveness
07:26and development.
07:27And for that, they need the trust of the citizens.
07:29So if you do not have that trust,
07:31I do not think that the objectives behind the simplification
07:34will comply.
07:35And do you think this case could have undermined
07:37trust, citizen trust in the EU institutions?
07:40Well, the only thing that I know
07:41is that I had the complaints
07:42and the complaints were quite huge
07:44and that is already a sign that you should do more.
07:48Actually, one of the things that my office,
07:50it is the mission of my office,
07:51is exactly to show to citizens
07:53that not only we exist and they can file their complaints to us,
07:57but also that institutions,
07:59when they recognize that they should do more
08:01to 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,
08:13which is clearly outside your mandate,
08:15into how the College of Europe was awarded a contract
08:18by the EU's diplomatic arm, the EEAS,
08:21and it involves very senior officials,
08:24including 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
08:38that are related to integrity issues,
08:42it is very important to acknowledge
08:43that you always have high risks
08:45in 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
08:55and efforts that actually institutions are doing
08:58to guarantee that they do have strong integrity frameworks.
09:04I believe that from this case,
09:07I can only hope,
09:09because this is the time for justice,
09:11I can only hope
09:11that it will be solved as fast as possible
09:16and that, of course,
09:17all the facts will be clear
09:19and that the institutions will also be transparent
09:21and collaborative in guaranteeing that,
09:23well, the public can continue to trust,
09:25of course, the European Union institutions.
09:28You have come under scrutiny recently
09:30for appointing your former head of cabinet
09:32to the most senior civil servant role
09:35in your institution,
09:36the European Ombudsman,
09:37which is the role of secretary general.
09:39In hindsight,
09:41was this the right decision?
09:44Did it send the right message to citizens?
09:48First of all,
09:49it is important to state
09:50that it was not a promotion.
09:52It was a selection procedure.
09:54It was not dependent
09:55from any discretionary power from my part.
09:59And you're rightly pointing to the fact
10:01that allows me to say
10:02that this procedure
10:03was a very transparent,
10:05rigorous and accountable procedure.
10:07But you were part of that selection procedure?
10:08I was part,
10:09but I was guaranteeing from the very beginning
10:12exactly this accountability
10:13with clear checks and balances
10:15and being very transparent and public about it.
10:19It is important exactly to state that
10:21because in the end of the day,
10:22I also recognize that
10:23there are always these problems
10:25related to the perceptions.
10:27There is a sense
10:28that there was a favoritism aspect here
10:31and you are seen as the woman
10:33who is meant to be working
10:34to erase this kind of culture.
10:37but in hindsight,
10:38do you think it was the right move?
10:41To be very fair,
10:43the selection procedure
10:44was a strong procedure
10:46in terms of checks and balances
10:48and guarantee of all ethical standards
10:50from the very beginning,
10:52having a very independent selection board.
10:54I did not have the possibility
10:57to exclude people
10:59that would be illegible.
11:01All the criteria were public
11:03and all the procedure
11:05had a very clear timeline.
11:07So you are not concerned
11:08that this could undermine
11:09your reputation in any way?
11:11What I can say
11:12is actually what I say
11:13to the other institutions.
11:15I am not immune
11:16to what happened afterwards
11:17even though I recognize
11:19that the procedure
11:19was sound
11:21in terms of legal accountability.
11:23What do you mean
11:23what happened afterwards?
11:25In terms of the media coverage
11:27and the idea that
11:29as you were saying
11:30as a question
11:31of hindering the perception
11:33of a possible favoritism.
11:36What is important to state here
11:38is that I am not immune to that
11:40and of course
11:41that I think that
11:42for the future
11:42it is important also
11:43to reflect
11:44how I can safeguard
11:45as well the institution
11:46in these kind of procedures
11:48for any kind of perception
11:51that might exist.
11:51Teresa Angino,
11:52thank you so much.
11:54Thank you.
Commentaires