Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in the inquiry into complaint 852/2014/LP against the European Commission regarding its compliance with the Tobacco Control Convention
A non-governmental organization (NGO) complained that the European Commission was violating the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires parties to protect against commercial and other vested interests of tobacco companies. The European Ombudsman agreed with the NGO that the European Commission’s policies did not provide sufficient transparency about its meetings with tobacco industry representatives. The Ombudsman recommended that the Commission put into place a policy—similar to the policy currently in place by the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety—that requires online publication of all meetings with tobacco industry representatives and publication of the minutes from those meetings.
Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in the inquiry into complaint 852/2014/LP against the European Commission regarding its compliance with the Tobacco Control Convention (2015).
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
An individual or organization may sue their own government in order to advance or protect the public interest. For example, an NGO may sue the government claiming the government’s weak tobacco control laws violated their constitutional right to health.
The WHO FCTC Guidelines are not mandatory for Parties and merely suggest policies, or a discussion on the effect of the Guidelines on national legislation.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"The Commission should ensure that the proactive transparency policy put in place by DG Health, requiring the publication online of all the meetings its staff have with tobacco industry representatives and the minutes taken of those meetings, should apply across all of the Commission's services irrespective of the seniority of the official concerned and including, specifically, members of its Legal Service."
"It should also be kept in mind that the effectiveness of DG Health's proactive transparency rules could be seriously weakened and undermined where other Commissioners and/or officials from other services, which are closely associated
with the Commission's law and policy-making activities, are allowed to hold unreported meetings with tobacco industry representatives. In this scenario, which in fact is currently the case, the existence of such meetings becomes known to the
public only if and when a citizen or other person makes an access to documents request under Regulation 1049/2001, or a MEP puts a relevant question to the Commission . Although DG Health is entrusted with the implementation of the Commission's policy on health, including the implementation of the "Tobacco Products" Directive, the fact remains that it is not only the DG Health officials and its Commissioner who ensure the implementation of the Convention, but the Commission as a whole through its law and policy making activities. Therefore, the Ombudsman fails to see why it should only be DG
Health that publishes online meetings of its staff with tobacco industry representatives while the rest of the Commission does not do so even though they are also involved, one way or another, in the law and policy-making activities of the Commission in the area of tobacco regulation.
The Ombudsman, therefore, does not share the Commission's view that the current ethical framework applicable to Commissioners and its staff ensures full compliance with the transparency obligation laid down in Article 5(3) of the Convention. Although these rules require, amongst other things, that officials should carry out their duties objectively, impartially and in keeping with their duty of loyalty to the Union (see Article 11 of the Staff Regulations), they do not impose any clear-cut obligations on officials to act to protect the policies of the EU "from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry", nor do they appear to give effect to the Guidelines in the sense of taking concrete "measures to limit interactions with the tobacco industry and ensure the transparency of those interactions that occur"."
"The Convention and the Guidelines, by requiring Parties to "act" to protect their health policies from commercial or other vested interests of the tobacco industry, impose a proactive approach rather than a reactive or even passive one. The Commission appears to have given partial effect to this requirement since DG Health has put in place such a proactive and effective transparency framework. This framework requires the publication online of all the meetings of its staff with tobacco industry representatives as well as the minutes of those meetings. The Ombudsman therefore fails to understand why these proactive rules, which can be considered to constitute best practice, should not apply across all of the Commission's services. This would ensure these rules apply to its top officials and officials of other services such as the Secretariat-General and the Legal Service, services that are closely involved in the policy and law making of the Commission as a whole."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A non-governmental organization (NGO) complained that the European Commission was violating the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires parties to protect against commercial and other vested interests of tobacco companies. The European Ombudsman agreed with the NGO that the European Commission’s policies did not provide sufficient transparency about its meetings with tobacco industry representatives. The Ombudsman recommended that the Commission put into place a policy—similar to the policy currently in place by the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety—that requires online publication of all meetings with tobacco industry representatives and publication of the minutes from those meetings.