The European Ombudsman, in its decision on the case 0676/2008/RT, required the European Commission to grant access to a series of letters relating some meetings between the Commission and representatives of cars manufacturers, which were requested by an non-governmental organization active environmental issues. Back in March this year the Ombudsman criticized the lack of cooperation from the Commission in this matter.

The complainant is a non-governmental organisation acting in the field of environmental protection, which in March 2007, asked the Commission for access to information and documents relating to meetings held between the Commission and representatives of car manufacturers, during which the Commission's approach to carbon dioxide emissions from cars was discussed. The Commission gave only partial access to the requested documents. It refused to grant access to three letters, sent by Porsche AG to former Vice-President Verheugen, arguing that their disclosure would undermine the protection of Porsche AG's commercial interests.

The complainant was not satisfied with the position taken by the Commission and, therefore, turned to the Ombudsman.

In the course of the Ombudsman's inquiry, the Commission maintained its position. Following an inspection of the documents concerned, on 27 October 2008, the Ombudsman made a draft recommendation to the Commission that it should grant access, in their entirety, to the three letters sent by Porsche AG to former Vice-President Verheugen, or consider partially disclosing them.

The Commission did not reply to the Ombudsman's draft recommendation until 11 March 2010, that is, almost 15 months after the three-month deadline set by the Ombudsman. In the meantime, the Ombudsman submitted a Special Report to Parliament concerning the Commission's failure to reply to his draft recommendation within the aforementioned deadline.

In its reply, the Commission accepted granting partial access to the three Porsche AG letters to former Vice-President Verheugen. It considered, however, that the non-disclosed parts were covered by the exception concerning the protection of Porsche AG's commercial interests.

The Ombudsman considered that the Commission did not provide convincing additional explanations regarding the individual facts of the case to justify its decision to provide only partial disclosure of the documents concerned. He therefore took the view that, by failing to properly justify why it refused access to the three Porsche AG letters to former Vice-President Verheugen in their entirety, the Commission committed an instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman made a critical remark in this respect.