Background to the complaint

1. In July 2017, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2017/1371 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law.[1] This Directive, which  aims to protect the EU budget, does so by establishing minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in that field.

2. In January 2023, the complainant, a Spanish citizen, submitted an infringement complaint to the Commission concerning the Spanish law transposing Directive 2017/1371. The complainant alleged that the national legislation, and in particular Article 432 bis of Organic Law 14/2022,[2] provided for penalties other than the ones established by Article 7 of Directive 2017/1371, in particular as regards prison sanctions for embezzlement.

3. The Commission registered the complaint in February 2023. In April and December 2024, following several requests for updates from the complainant, the Commission informed the complainant that his complaint was still being analysed, and that it was in contact with the Spanish authorities on the matter. Following this, the complainant did not receive any update on the state of play of his complaint, despite sending reminders to the Commission in March and June 2025.

4. On 24 June 2025, dissatisfied with the situation, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The inquiry

5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how the Commission was dealing with the infringement complaint.

6. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to provide a written reply explaining in detail the reasons for the time taken to deal with the infringement complaint. In addition, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team inspected the Commission’s file concerning the complaint at issue.

7. The Ombudsman then received the comments of the complainant on the Commission’s reply and the inspection report.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

8. The complainant argued that the Commission unduly delayed the handling of his infringement complaint. In his view, the Commission’s failure to respect the one-year timeframe[3] for processing infringement complaints was unjustifiable, especially due to the legal simplicity of the problem he had raised. For the complainant this delay was the result of the increasing politicisation of infringement procedures in general, and of his specific complaint in particular.

9. The Commission, in its reply, provided a summary of the different steps it has taken on the matter, from the adoption of Directive 2017/1371 in 2017 to 2025, and of the latest correspondence from the complainant at the time.

10. The Commission explained that the time taken was due partly to the complexity of the matter (which required the analysis of the provisions of Spanish law amended in 2022, the involvement of different Commission services, and regular exchanges with the Spanish authorities), and partly to ongoing developments regarding the applicable legal framework. Specifically, Directive 2017/1371 is about to undergo a revision process, and thus, the Commission is carefully assessing how to proceed in relation to identified issues and which violations would require formal action at this stage. Additionally, the adoption of Spanish amnesty law,[4] together with the pending case C-523/24 before the Court of Justice of the European Union,[5] have given rise to legal uncertainty concerning the interpretation of the principle of effective and deterrent prevention of illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the EU.

11. Therefore, the Commission has deemed appropriate to monitor domestic developments and wait for the outcome of case C-523/24 before taking any formal decision. The Commission underlined that, nonetheless, the dialogue with the Spanish authorities is still ongoing, and that it is taking the necessary steps to finalise its analysis.

12. In his comments on the Commission’s reply, the complainant contended that the fact that the Commission sent a high number of documents for inspection was only to give a false impression of action. The complainant further questioned the Commission’s position to wait for a preliminary ruling from the Court on another national law (which he considered unrelated to the matter at issue), and to continue monitoring the evolution of the national situation. In his view, it was clear that the Spanish authorities did not intend to resolve the matter.

The Ombudsman's assessment

13. The Commission enjoys wide discretion when dealing with infringement complaints.[6] As such, the Ombudsman’s role in this area concerns the administrative and procedural handling of infringement cases by the Commission. This includes ensuring that the Commission exercises its discretion in accordance with its own rules, including by verifying the time taken to handle complaints and reasons given for any delays, and checking whether any manifest error of assessment has been made.[7]

14. In line with the Commission’s Communication EU law: Better results through better application, the Commission has an indicative deadline of one year from the registration of an infringement complaint to decide whether to issue a formal notice to the Member State concerned or to close the case. The Ombudsman has accepted that the Communication does not lay down an absolute requirement for the Commission to take a decision within one year. However, when the one-year time limit is exceeded, the principles of good administration require the Commission to provide specific and valid reasons for the time needed to deal with the case.[8]

15. In the case at issue, the Commission has exceeded the indicative deadline for its assessment of the complaint. Indeed, the complainant lodged his infringement complaint more than three years ago.

16. That being said, based on the inspection of the file, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission has been taking regular action on the matter at issue, starting from 2022 and the adoption of the Spanish legislation at issue. The documents inspected are consistent with the explanations and timeline provided by the Commission. Namely, they show that the Commission started its assessment of the law concerned shortly after it was adopted, that substantive internal consultations and exchanges took place – including among different services of the Commission –, and that the Commission had a number of meaningful interactions with the national authorities.

17. On substance, based on her review of the contributions of the services involved, the Ombudsman shares the Commission’s arguments as regards the legal complexity of the matter. Considering that the Commission’s assessment is still ongoing, it is not possible to disclose more information at this stage.

18. In light of the above, the Ombudsman concludes that the duration of the assessment of the complaint is mainly due to factors that appear justified, and that there is no indication that the Commission has exceeded its broad margin of discretion in dealing with the case. Thus, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries into this complaint are justified.

19. The Ombudsman nonetheless regrets that the explanations provided by the Commission were not shared with the complainant earlier on, and that it took several complaints[9] to the Ombudsman for him to receive a meaningful update on the state of play of his complaint. The Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will duly keep the complainant informed of any further developments in this case.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion[10]:

No further inquiries are justified.

The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision.

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 07/08/2026

 

[1] Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law, available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2017/1371/oj.

[2] Ley Orgánica 14/2022, de 22 de diciembre, de transposición de directivas europeas y otras disposiciones para la adaptación de la legislación penal al ordenamiento de la Unión Europea, y reforma de los delitos contra la integridad moral, desórdenes públicos y contrabando de armas de doble uso, available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2022-21800

[3] See point 8 of the Annex to the Communication “EU law, better results through better application”, available at:  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2017.018.01.0010.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2017:018:TOC. 

[4] Ley Orgánica 1/2024, de 10 de junio, de amnistía para la normalización institucional, política y social en Cataluña, available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2024-11776&tn=1&p=20260327

[5] Case C-523/24, Sociedad Civil Catalana: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Cuentas (Spain) lodged on 30 July 2024, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62024CN0523.

[6] Judgment of the Court of 14 February 1989, Starfruit v Commission, case 247/87, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61987CJ0247. 

[7] See the decision of the Ombudsman in cases 442/2025/EIS and 691/2025/EIS, paragraph 17, available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/225468 ; as well as the decision of the Ombudsman in case 667/2024/AML, paragraphs 11-13, available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/205902

[8] See paragraph 28 of the Ombudsman’s decision in case 425/2017/ANA, available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/90387.

[9] Namely, 530/2024/AML, 875/2024/AML, as well as a public access case 465/2024/OAM.

[10] This complaint has been dealt with under delegated case handling, in accordance with the Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions