00:00Субтитры делал DimaTorzok
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 8-9 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.
02:04You 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,
02:19that 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 a 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 requests
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,
03:12I believe that the criticisms that we hear are actually in order.
03:17But, this said, there are a lot of challenges,
03:21and we see in my office these challenges through the number of complaints
03:25that 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,
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 exactly what happened.
04:03It's 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,
04:16document management systems, with 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, understand 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,
04:41which 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's a question of transparency and accountability in a very challenging time,
04:57with new tools, namely the WhatsApp messages, the signal or whatever the system that you use to exchange messages.
05:04If they are related to decision-making processes, they are documents, that is very clear.
05:09And if they are, if they have this possibility to be documents and be related to this decision-making process,
05:15it 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,
05:28where the EU Court actually found that the Commission was violating its own transparency rules.
05:35But then, we have never seen those messages shared between the Pfizer CEO and von der Leyen,
05:41relating to the COVID-19 vaccine contracts.
05:44Is 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?
05:52That's my objective, is to, you know, produce positive changes
05:56and allow constructively also for the Commission to reflect on their own systems of management of documents.
06:04I believe that it is, that's why I said, it's in this case particularly important
06:09because it is also forward-looking to guarantee that what happened in the past does not happen in the future.
06:14And we already had cases where that was also stated in the sense that, particularly when you have an access to documents request,
06:21those documents should not just disappear, they should be retained for an analysis,
06:27if they should be disclosed or not, if 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
06:40when it pushed through proposals it considered urgent, including 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
07:04because the number of articles, the number of coverage, 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,
07:19they will also push for what they really aim with the simplification,
07:22that 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
07:33will comply.
07:34And do you think this case could have undermined trust, citizen trust in the EU institutions?
07:39Well, 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.
07:47Actually, 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,
07:56but also that institutions, when they recognise that they should do more
08:00to be more transparent or more accountable, they actually voluntarily do so.
08:05Your role often involves probing tendering processes.
08:09Now, 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,
08:41it is very important to acknowledge that you always have high risks in terms of damaging the reputation
08:46of the EU as a whole. Past 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.
09:03I believe that, from this case, I can only hope, because this is the time for justice,
09:10I can only hope that it will be solved as fast as possible and that, of course, all the facts will be clear
09:18and 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.
09:26You have come under scrutiny recently for appointing your former Head of Cabinet to the most senior civil servant role
09:34in your institution, the European Ombudsman, which is the role of Secretary-General.
09:39In 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,
09:53it was not dependent from any discretionary power from my part. And you are rightly pointing to the fact
10:00that allows me to say that this procedure was a very transparent, rigorous and accountable procedure.
10:06But 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
10:14and balances and being very transparent and public about it. It is important exactly to state that,
10:20because in the end of the day I also recognise that there are always these problems related to the perceptions.
10:26There is a sense that there was a favouritism aspect here, and you are seen as the woman who is meant to be working
10:34to erase this kind of culture. In hindsight, do you think it was the right move?
10:39To be very fair, the selection procedure was a strong procedure in terms of checks and balances
10:47and guarantee of all ethical standards from the very beginning, having a very independent selection board.
10:54I did not have the possibility to exclude people that would be illegible, all the criteria were public,
11:03and all the procedure had a very clear timeline.
11:06So you are not concerned that this could undermine your reputation in any way?
11:10What I can say is actually what I say to the other institutions. I am not immune to what happened afterwards,
11:17even though I recognise that the procedure was sound in terms of legal accountability.
11:22What 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
11:33of a possible favouritism. 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 as well
11:45the institution in these kind of procedures for any kind of perception that might exist.
11:51Teresa Angino, thank you so much.
11:53Thank you.
11:54Thank you.
Comments