Dear Mr X,

You recently submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the above issue.

In your complaint to the Commission, you expressed concerns about possible systemic age-based discrimination in access to oncology diagnostics and treatment in Poland, unequal access to healthcare services, referring to Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (non-discrimination). In your view, EU law applies in this case because (some) healthcare reforms are supported through the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).

After careful analysis of all the information you provided with your complaint, it was decided to close the case with the following conclusion:

There was no maladministration by the Commission.

It is important to recall that the Commission enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether and when to commence an infringement procedure.[1] Its policy on infringements of EU law is set out in its Communication EU law: Better results through better application.[2]

The role of the Ombudsman in such cases is limited to verifying that the Commission gave clear and reasonable explanations for its decision, and that there was no manifest error of assessment.

In this case, the Commission was right to state that public health is a shared competence between the EU and its Member States, and that the definition of health policy, organisation, and delivery of health services is the responsibility of the Member States.

As the Commission also explained to you, it does not have a general power to monitor how EU Member States observe fundamental rights either. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights applies only alongside other, more specific EU law provisions. Even if the RRF could be linked to some of the healthcare reforms in Poland, there is nothing to suggest that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by stating that such general references to the RRF could not justify the opening of an infringement proceedings regarding your above-mentioned concerns.

I understand this is not a result you were hoping for, but I hope you will find these explanations useful.

Yours sincerely, 

Tina Nilsson
Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg, 29/06/2026

 

[1] 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.

[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017XC0119(01)&from=EN