The European Ombudsman, Teresa Anjinho, stated on Wednesday at the Forum Europa in Brussels that EU institutions must provide precise justification for “exceptions” to public access to documents, as it must be demonstrated that making certain information public would cause demonstrable harm.
Anjinho made this point at an information session organised in the EU capital by New Economy Forum, where she argued that timely access to documents is essential for citizens to participate meaningfully in decision-making and called for transparency to be recognised as a “fundamental right” that is increasingly being ignored.
The Ombudsman explained that the regulations provide for legitimate exceptions to protect privacy, commercial interests, public security and international relations. However, she stressed that these grounds must be applied “strictly” and on the basis of specific and well-founded reasons. She insisted that exceptions must be “exactly that, exceptional”, and always based on tangible facts.
For Anjinho, the most important aspect from her office’s perspective is the way in which institutions justify why they do or do not disclose information. She revealed that the European Ombudsman examines every document and maintains a constructive dialogue with both institutions and citizens, acting, he said, as a kind of “qualified interpreter” between the two.
She warned that, given the complexity of certain issues, there is a growing tendency to resort to exceptions and general assumptions, which creates a “problem” for citizens by forcing them to justify their actions in order to exercise a right that should be guaranteed.
Anjinho emphasised that democracy requires “the ongoing consent of the governed” and that this “cannot happen in the dark”. She therefore insisted that citizens have the right to see, understand and assess what public institutions are doing.
She argued that a strong democracy depends on legitimacy, and that legitimacy depends on openness. She warned that the misuse of exceptions creates what he termed “a legitimacy gap” which, if left unaddressed, erodes the foundation of trust upon which democratic institutions are built.
THANKS TO THE SPONSORSHIP OF
