00:00Música
00:00My guest today is the European Ombudswoman, Teresa Ancinho.
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?
00:49I believe that as European Ombudswoman, in very challenging times that actually we should always recognize,
00:59for 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.
01:17And 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, well, continues to monitor actively the European Union administration
01:54and 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.
02:03You 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 for 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 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 from the Commission
02:55in guaranteeing that we are compliant, that the institutions are compliant and recognize that behind the access to documents requests
03:03is a fundamental right that is linked to transparency, and 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 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, 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's very important to come up with clear conclusions related to something that actually the Court of Justice already also pointed out.
04:11The importance of having good record management systems, document management systems, with registration and retention that will allow,
04:23even in an event of access to documents, to 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,
04:49should the Commission President be keeping those messages and not auto-deleting them?
04:53Again, it's a question of transparency and accountability in a very challenging time with new tools, namely the WhatsApp messages,
05:01the 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, where the EU court actually
05:31found that the Commission was violating its own transparency rules. But then we've never seen those
05:38messages 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? Can recommendations from you as the Ombudswoman
05:50change the way that they operate, do you think?
05:53That's my objective, is to, you know, produce positive changes and allow constructively also
05:59for the Commission to reflect on their own systems of management of documents. I believe that it is,
06:06that's why I said it's in this case particularly important because it is also forward-looking to
06:11guarantee that what happened in the past does not happen in the future. And we already had cases where
06:17that was also stated in the sense that particularly when you have an access to documents request,
06:23those documents should not just disappear, they should be retained for an analysis,
06:28if they should be disclosed or not, if they should be considered documents or not.
06:32I 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?
06:53Quite honestly, what I see is the Commission already understanding that actually they need
06:57to guarantee that the procedure that they have for decision-making has to be transparent,
07:03inclusive and evidence-based because the number of articles, the number of coverage, media coverage,
07:09that this omnibus one package had already shows that the Commission has to do more because by doing
07:15more and investing in this transparency, accountability procedures, they will also push for what they really
07:21aim with the simplification, that is to guarantee that they boost competitiveness and development and for
07:27that they need the trust of the citizens. So if you do not have that trust, I don't think that the objectives
07:33behind the simplification will comply. And do you think this case could have undermined
07:37trust, citizen trust in the EU institutions? Well, the only thing that I know is that I had the
07:42complaints and the complaints were quite huge and 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
07:52citizens that not only we exist and they can file their complaints to us, but also that institutions,
07:59when they recognise that they should do more to be more transparent or more accountable, they actually
08:03voluntarily do so.
08:05Your 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 EU's
08:19diplomatic arm, the EEAS, and it involves very senior officials, including the former EU High Representative,
08:27Federica 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
08:47EU as a whole. Past cases also show that, as well as it hinders the already very high standards that
08:55exist and efforts that actually institutions are doing to guarantee, you know, that they do have
09:00strong integrity frameworks. I believe that from this case, I can only hope, because this is the time
09:10for justice, I can only hope that it will be solved as fast as possible and that, of course, all the facts
09:17will be clear and that the institutions will also be transparent and collaborative in guaranteeing that,
09:23well, 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 to the most senior
09:34civil servant role in your institution, the 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?
09:47First of all, it is important to state that it was not a promotion. It was a selection procedure. It
09:54was not dependent from any discretionary power from my part. And you're rightly pointing to the fact
10:01that allows me to say that this procedure was a very transparent, rigorous and accountable procedure.
10:07But you were part of that selection procedure?
10:08I was part, but I was guaranteeing from the very beginning exactly this accountability with clear checks and
10:15balances and being very transparent and public about it. It is important exactly to state that because
10:21in the end of the day, I also recognize that there are always these problems of related to the perceptions.
10:27There is a sense that there was a favoritism 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?
10:40To be very fair, the selection procedure was a strong procedure in terms of checks and balances and
10:48guarantee of all ethical standards from the very beginning, having a very independent selection board.
10:55I did not have the possibility to exclude people that would be illegible. All the criteria were public
11:04and all the procedure had a very clear timeline.
11:07So you are 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. I am not immune to what happened
11:16afterwards, even though I recognize 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
11:33perception of a possible favoritism. What is important to state here is that I am 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.
11:53Teresa Angino, thank you.
Comentários