Irregularities Ombudsman inquiry
Dear Madam, Sir,
Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:
All documents, including but not limited to minutes, (hand-written) notes, audio recordings, (draft) reports, verbatim reports, operational conclusions, lines to take, briefings, e-mails, letters, complaints and presentations, related to (a) complaint(s) submitted under Article 22 of the Staff Regulations in relation to inquiry 805/2018/THH (also 805/2018/MIG). This includes any documents created, submitted or received in the context of OLAF investigation OLAF.A.1.001(2021)26439.
I understand that while this OLAF investigation did not lead to a formal report, serious irregularities were uncovered into how inquiry 805/2018/THH was conducted. Since I was the complainant in that case, I believe there is a strong public (and personal) interest in determining whether and if so to what extent the inquiry suffered from such irregularities.
Only digital copies are required, please consider the environment by not sending me any physical mail.
I am of course available to clarify my request further if needed.
Sincerely
Peter Teffer
Follow the Money
Overtoom 197
1054HT Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Link: [1]File-List
Link: [2]Edit-Time-Data
Link: [3]themeData
Link: [4]colorSchemeMapping
Sent by ve_ombu.euroombudsman (OMBU) <[European Ombudsman request email]>. All
responses have to be sent to this email address.
Envoyé par ve_ombu.euroombudsman (OMBU) <[European Ombudsman request email]>. Toutes
les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique.
Dear Mr Teffer,
Thank you for your request for public access to documents that you
submitted to the European Ombudsman’s Office on 7 March 2025.
We registered your request under reference Ares(2025)1981222.
We will deal with the request in accordance with Regulation 1049/2001
regarding public access to EU documents and the Ombudsman's Decision on
internal rules for dealing with applications for public access to
documents and requests for information.
We will deal with your request as soon as possible and reply to you no
later than 2 April 2025 (15 working days from the date of registration of
your request).
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Office by
telephone: + 33 (0)3 88 17 23 13 or e-mail: [5][European Ombudsman request email].
European Ombudsman
Access to Documents and Freedom of Information Team
1 avenue du Président Robert Schuman
CS 30403
F - 67001 Strasbourg Cedex
[6]www.ombudsman.europa.eu
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01DB936C.56026470
2. file:///tmp/cid:editdata.mso
3. file:///tmp/~~themedata~~
4. file:///tmp/~~colorschememapping~~
5. mailto:[European Ombudsman request email]
6. European Ombudsman Home Page
http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/
Link: [1]File-List
Link: [2]Edit-Time-Data
Link: [3]themeData
Link: [4]colorSchemeMapping
Sent by ve_ombu.euroombudsman (OMBU) <[European Ombudsman request email]>. All
responses have to be sent to this email address.
Envoyé par ve_ombu.euroombudsman (OMBU) <[European Ombudsman request email]>. Toutes
les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique.
Dear Mr Teffer,
By e-mail of 7 March 2025, you made a request for public access to
documents to the European Ombudsman’s Office.
Your request was registered under reference Ares(2025)1981222.
We are handling your request in accordance with Regulation 1049/2001
regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission
documents and the Ombudsman’s Decision on the handling of requests for
public access to documents.
However, given that internal consultations are still ongoing,
unfortunately we will not be in a position to complete the handling of
your request within the initial time limit of 15 working days, which
expires today.
We therefore have to extend the deadline by another 15 working days in
accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 1049/2001. We will provide you
with a reply as soon as possible but in any case no later than 24 April
2025.
We apologise for this delay and for any inconvenience this may cause.
Yours sincerely,
European Ombudsman
Access to Documents and Freedom of Information Team
1 avenue du Président Robert Schuman
CS 30403
F - 67001 Strasbourg Cedex
[5]www.ombudsman.europa.eu
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01DBA3D6.A51E0B20
2. file:///tmp/cid:editdata.mso
3. file:///tmp/~~themedata~~
4. file:///tmp/~~colorschememapping~~
5. European Ombudsman Home Page
http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/
Dear Madam, Sir,
I refer to your message in relation to my access to documents request, registered under reference Ares(2025)1981222.
You note that a reply within the time limit of 15 working days is not possible "given that internal consultations are still ongoing", and that the time limit therefore should be extended.
As I am sure the European Ombudsman is very aware, considering it often receives complaints about the application of Regulation 1049/2001, such an extension is only possible in "exceptional cases, for example in the event of an application relating to a very long document or to a very large number of documents", if "detailed reasons are given".
Internal consultations are probably always required for handling access to documents requests, so this is not exceptional.
Could the Ombudsman provide more detailed reasons why this particular request is an exceptional case?
Sincerely
Peter Teffer
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
[email address]
host mxa-00244802.gslb.pphosted.com [185.183.28.74]
SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<[email address]>:
550 5.1.1 User Unknown
Dear Mr Teffer,
I am writing in reply to your request for public access of 7 March 2025 to
documents concerning “(a) complaint(s) submitted under Article 22 of the
Staff Regulations in relation to inquiry 805/2018/THH (also 805/2018/MIG).
This includes any documents created, submitted or received in the context
of OLAF investigation OLAF.A.1.001(2021)26439.”
We have dealt with your request in accordance with Regulation 1049/2001
regarding public access to EU institutions’ documents[1][1], as well as
the Ombudsman’s Decision on the handling of requests for public access to
documents.[2][2]
On 12 March 2025, we have registered your request under reference
Ares(2025)1981222. On 2 April 2025, we have informed you of the need to
extend the deadline to reply to your request in accordance with Article
7(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, as internal consultations were still
ongoing.
Following a thorough search to identify relevant documents, I am sorry to
inform you that we could not identify, so far, any document(s) with the
reference you mentioned in your request, that is,
‘OLAF.A.1.001(2021)26439’. In reaching this conclusion, we have searched
for registered documents in our records management systems (ARES and case
management system). Following this, we have also consulted relevant staff
members who have dealt with the matter.
As specified in Article 2(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, the right of access
as defined in that regulation applies only to existing documents in the
possession of the institution. According to settled EU case-law, if the
institution concerned states that it does not hold the requested
document(s), there is a legal presumption that this statement is true and
accurate.[3][3] While this presumption can be rebutted with relevant and
consistent evidence that the requested documents exist and are held by the
institution concerned, it is for the applicant to provide such
evidence.[4][4]
That being said, we understand your request to refer to a ‘report’ made by
a staff member in October 2020, which was forwarded to the European
Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).[5][5] OLAF decided to investigate the
allegations. OLAF concluded its investigation without any recommendations
for follow-up.
On the basis of this, we have identified 41 documents as falling within
the scope of your request. A list of documents with a short description of
their content, reference (where relevant) and date (where possible) is
attached to this reply.
We have decided to grant you full access to three documents (documents
2.3.1, 2.3.2. and 2.3.3). I am sorry to inform you that access cannot be
granted to the eight documents (namely, documents 1, 1.1,1.2, 6, 6.1, 11,
17 and 23) based on the need to protect the privacy and integrity of
individuals in accordance with Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001
read together with the EUDPR.[6][6] We have decided to grant you partial
access to the remaining documents.
According to Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001, access to a document
(or parts thereof) shall be refused if its disclosure would undermine the
protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual.
In accordance with EU case-law, when a request for public access to
documents containing personal data is made, any potential disclosure must
be assessed by reference to the EU rules on the protection of personal
data. Therefore, the EUDPR becomes fully applicable.[7][7]
The EUDPR provides for a very broad definition of what is personal data,
that is “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural
person [...]”.[8]^^[8] An identifiable person is someone who can be
identified from the information either directly (name) or indirectly
(elements that combined with other information can make the person
identifiable).
The EUDPR provides for a strict legal framework when processing personal
data by the EU institutions.[9][9] Therefore, requesters who would like to
access personal data have to provide specific reasons as to why disclosure
of this information would serve the public interest and the controller,
where there is any reason to assume that the data subject’s legitimate
interests might be prejudiced, establishes that it is proportionate to
transmit the personal data for that specific purpose after having
demonstrably weighed the various competing interests (‘necessity test’).
Please note that it is for the requester of the personal data to establish
the necessity for having the personal data transferred. The EU body
concerned is not required to assess this on its own initiative.[10][10]
We note that in your request you did not put forward any arguments to
establish a necessity for disclosure in the public interest. In this
regard, the General Court held that abstract and generic arguments are not
sufficient to establish the necessity of the transmission of personal
data.[11][11]
In relation to documents 5.2 and 5.3, in addition to personal data, a
limited number of elements are also redacted in order to protect the
purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, in accordance with
Article 4(2), third indent of Regulation 1049/2001.
These elements pertain to information exchanged with the EIB on a
confidential basis. It follows from Article 6 of the Statute of the
European Ombudsman[12][12], that we cannot provide access to those parts
of the documents. Disclosure of these elements would call into question
whether institutions would engage openly and constructively with the
Office in sharing documents requested from them, which is vital for the
Ombudsman to perform her Treaty-based role of identifying and remedying
instances of maladministration. The disclosure of the documents at issue
could create uncertainty about the confidentiality of shared information,
discouraging effective collaboration between the Ombudsman and the EIB, in
this case, and with other EU institutions and bodies, in general. Such
disclosure would undermine the principle of mutual trust and loyal
cooperation between the EU institutions and bodies and the Ombudsman,
which is essential for ensuring that the Ombudsman’s inquiries are
conducted successfully and that their purpose is achieved, and hence it
would undermine the purpose of the Ombudsman’s inquiries.
In addition, some elements refer to an incident, which occurred in the
handling of the case 805/2018 at an early stage, which was subsequently
remedied during the inquiry and to how the matter was handled at the time.
These elements are intrinsically linked to the exceptions for the
protection of the public interest as regards the protection of personal
data and the protection of the purpose of investigations. In addition,
they reflect internal views of individual staff members on the matter.
Disclosure of those elements would be likely to compromise the
complainants’ trust in the Ombudsman’s capacity to carry out inquiries
appropriately and discourage complainants to exercise their fundamental
right to complaint to the Ombudsman in the future. We therefore consider
that disclosure of those elements would undermine the Ombudsman’s
decision-making process regarding future inquiries pursuant to Article
4(3), second subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001, in addition to the
protection of the interests already mentioned above.[13][13]
The exceptions for the protection of investigations and for the protection
of the decision making process under Regulation 1049/2001 apply unless
there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the document(s) or
parts thereof.
In your request, you contend that there is a strong public interest “in
determining whether and if so to what extent the inquiry suffered from
such irregularities.” We share your view that accountability and public
scrutiny are essential and necessary for ensuring public trust in the
proper functioning of the Ombudsman’s Office. As mentioned above, there
was an incident in the handling of the case at an early stage of the
inquiry, which was addressed swiftly and remedied during the inquiry. As
you point out in your request, OLAF also carried out an investigation into
the matter, which was closed with no recommendations for follow-up, as
mentioned above. Against this background, as there was already an external
and independent scrutiny over the said incident, we consider that the
public interest will be better served by ensuring that the Ombudsman can
effectively carry out her duties as explained above.
Finally, as you will see from the list of documents, some documents only
partially fall within the scope of your request. In such cases, the parts
of the document, which fall outside of the scope of your request have also
been redacted or fully removed (if entire pages would be outside the scope
of your request).
We hope that the documents provided sufficiently address your request in
light of the information above. However, should you wish to challenge this
decision, you may request a review under Article 7(2) of Regulation
1049/2001 (‘confirmatory application’ procedure). You may do so by sending
an e -mail to [14][European Ombudsman request email] within 15 working days of having
received this decision.
If you have any questions or requests for clarifications, you are welcome
to contact us at the email above. Finally, I would like to apologise again
for the slight delay in replying to your request and I thank you for your
understanding. Due to the size of the documents, these will be sent in
several batches.
Sincerely,
Tereza Mandjukova
Tereza Mandjukova
Transparency Officer
European Ombudsman
Directorate of Inquiries
1 avenue du Président Robert Schuman
CS 30403
F - 67001 Strasbourg Cedex
[15]www.ombudsman.europa.eu
-------------------------------
[1] Regulation 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council
regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission
documents:
[16]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/....
2 Decision of the European Ombudsman on internal procedures for dealing
with applications for public access to documents and requests for
information: [17]https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/docum....
3T-468/16, Verein Deutsche Sprach v Commission, paras 35 - 37; available
at: [18]https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?....
4 Ibid.
5
[19]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc...
6 Regulation 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the
processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and
agencies and on the free movement of such data, available at:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1...
7 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 June 2010, European Commission v
The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd, C-28/08 P, paragraph 59:
[20]https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d...
8 Article 3(1) of the EUDPR.
9 Article 9(1)(b) of the EUDPR.
10Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2015, ClientEarth v European
Food Safety Authority, C-615/13, paragraph 47:
[21]https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d...
11Cases T-639/15 to 666/15 and T-94/16, Psara and Others v European
Parliament, paragraphs 72, 74, 75 and 84:
[22]https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d...
See also Article 9(1)(b) of the EUDPR, which reads “the recipient
establishes that it is necessary to have the data transmitted for a
specific purpose in the public interest [...]”.
12Available at:
[23]https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/legal....
13 Article 4(1)b and the protection of personal data and Article 4(2),
third indent and the protection of the purpose of investigations.
────────────────────────
[24][1] Regulation 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council
regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission
documents:
[25]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/....
[26][2] Decision of the European Ombudsman on internal procedures for
dealing with applications for public access to documents and requests for
information: [27]https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/docum....
[28][3] T-468/16, Verein Deutsche Sprach v Commission, paras 35 - 37;
available
at: [29]https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?....
[30][4] Ibid.
[31][5]
[32]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc...
[33][6] Regulation 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the
processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and
agencies and on the free movement of such data, available at:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1...
[34][7] Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 June 2010, European
Commission v The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd, C-28/08 P, paragraph 59:
[35]https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d...
[36][8] Article 3(1) of the EUDPR.
[37][9] Article 9(1)(b) of the EUDPR.
[38][10] Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2015, ClientEarth v
European Food Safety Authority, C-615/13, paragraph 47:
[39]https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d...
[40][11] Cases T-639/15 to 666/15 and T-94/16, Psara and Others v European
Parliament, paragraphs 72, 74, 75 and 84:
[41]https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d...
See also Article 9(1)(b) of the EUDPR, which reads “the recipient
establishes that it is necessary to have the data transmitted for a
specific purpose in the public interest [...]”.
[42][12] Available at:
[43]https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/legal....
[44][13] Article 4(1)b and the protection of personal data and Article
4(2), third indent and the protection of the purpose of investigations.
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftn1
2. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftn2
3. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftn3
4. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftn4
5. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftn5
6. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftn6
7. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftn7
8. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftn8
9. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftn9
10. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftn10
11. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftn11
12. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftn12
13. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftn13
14. mailto:[European Ombudsman request email]
15. European Ombudsman Home Page
http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/
16. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
17. https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/docum...
18. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?...
19. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc...
20. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d...
21. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d...
22. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d...
23. https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/legal...
24. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftnref1
25. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
26. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftnref2
27. https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/docum...
28. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftnref3
29. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?...
30. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftnref4
31. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftnref5
32. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc...
33. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftnref6
34. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftnref7
35. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d...
36. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftnref8
37. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftnref9
38. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftnref10
39. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d...
40. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftnref11
41. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d...
42. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftnref12
43. https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/legal...
44. file:///tmp/foiextract20250429-3446859-bgg13t#_ftnref13
Dear Mr Teffer,
As mentioned, please find attached the third and last batch of documents.
I remain available.
Kind regards,
Tereza Mandjukova
Dear Madam, Sir,
I am filing a following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request registered under reference Ares(2025)1981222.
While I appreciate your attempt in the decision to assure me that "the incident in the handling of the case [..] was addressed swiftly and remedied during the inquiry", it is impossible to assess as an outsider whether that is the case. The redactions and withholding of documents are such, that very little of substance has remained that could serve as evidence that the "incident" was addressed and remedied. A document like 5_12_5.2.Statement of facts might contain such evidence, but this was widely redacted.
The Ombudsman pointed out that in my application there were no "arguments to establish a necessity for disclosure in the public interest", since "abstract and generic arguments are not sufficient to establish the necessity of the transmission of personal data". But this is the paradox a documents requester always runs into. I do not have access to the withheld information, which could possibly provide a concrete argument for publication, and therefore am forced to rely on abstract and generic arguments.
One argument I can give, is that document 4_9_4.AR of the report from OLAF to EO spoke of "your communication to OLAF by letter dated 14/10/2020 in which you forwarded information of potential interest to the Office, in particular a report that you had received from staff member making serious accusations against [REDACTED] your institution". The fact that the accusations are considered serious by OLAF, could be an argument establishing a necessity for disclosure in the public interest - if only to dispel these accusations.
What I can say about the use of article 4(1)b, is that it seems to have been used broadly. Often, when an institution uses article 4(1)b, it is to redact the name or phone number of a civil servants. One can then see that only one or two words are redacted within a sentence. But in this instance, it seems that more than just a short word or collection of words have been redacted each time. This suggests that article 4(1)b is used to justify the redaction of a name AND an attribute to that name. Hypothesizing, this could be information about (a) persons, like the complainant or other staff member(s), and something this person(s) ha(s)(ve) said or done. Has the Ombudsman considered redacting *only* the name(s) of the person(s), and giving access to the rest? Perhaps this can be done in the review.
I also do not understand why a large part of the information is seen as out of scope. As I understand it, there were two complaints made by a staff member, on 7 October 2020, and 23 October 2020. The document 5_12_5.2.Statement of facts Redacted says: "The "Report" cannot be seen in isolation. The "Report" is an integral part of a complaint made under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations." This suggests that both complaints are linked, and therefore suggest that both are in scope.
Sincerely,
Peter Teffer
Link: [1]File-List
Link: [2]Edit-Time-Data
Link: [3]themeData
Link: [4]colorSchemeMapping
Sent by ve_ombu.euroombudsman (OMBU) <[European Ombudsman request email]>. All
responses have to be sent to this email address.
Envoyé par ve_ombu.euroombudsman (OMBU) <[European Ombudsman request email]>. Toutes
les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique.
Dear Mr Teffer,
Thank you for your confirmatory application of 19 May 2025 concerning the
reply on your initial application for public access to documents to the
European Ombudsman’s Office (reference of the initial reply
Ares(2025)3452655).
Your confirmatory application was registered today under the reference
[5]Ares(2025)4237662. We apologise for the delay in the registration.
We will deal with your confirmatory application in accordance with
Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to EU documents and the
European Ombudsman's Decision on internal procedures for dealing with
requests for public access to documents.
We will deal with your confirmatory application as soon as possible and
reply to you not later than 19 June 2025 (15 working days from the date of
registration of your confirmatory application).
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Office by
telephone: + 33 (0)3 88 17 23 13 or e-mail: [6][European Ombudsman request email].
[7]cid:image003.png@01D86A9B.093A7210 European Ombudsman
Access to Documents and Freedom of
Information Team
1 avenue du Président Robert Schuman
CS 30403
F - 67001 Strasbourg Cedex
[8]www.ombudsman.europa.eu
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01DBCE5D.8130EFF0
2. file:///tmp/cid:editdata.mso
3. file:///tmp/~~themedata~~
4. file:///tmp/~~colorschememapping~~
5. https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/documen...
6. mailto:[European Ombudsman request email]
8. European Ombudsman Home Page
http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/
Link: [1]File-List
Link: [2]Edit-Time-Data
Link: [3]themeData
Link: [4]colorSchemeMapping
Sent by ve_ombu.euroombudsman (OMBU) <[European Ombudsman request email]>. All
responses have to be sent to this email address.
Envoyé par ve_ombu.euroombudsman (OMBU) <[European Ombudsman request email]>. Toutes
les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique.
Dear Mr Teffer,
Please find attached the reply to your confirmatory application registered
under reference Ares(2025)4237662 and four attachments:
- List of documents – confirmatory stage;
- Documents: 11, 13, 14 and 15.
Sincerely,
Secretariat
European Ombudsman
Directorate for Administration
[5][European Ombudsman request email]
[6]T. +33 3 88 17 23 13
[7]www.ombudsman.europa.eu
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01DBE155.53FA3D60
2. file:///tmp/cid:editdata.mso
3. file:///tmp/~~themedata~~
4. file:///tmp/~~colorschememapping~~
5. file:///tmp/[European Ombudsman request email]
6. Click to call
file:///tmp/+33388172313
7. European Ombudsman Home Page
http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/