The case concerned a request for public access to documents drawn up in the context of a European Commission audit concerning compliance by farmers in Lithuania with environmental requirements that they have to meet to receive EU funding.

The Commission refused to give public access to the documents arguing that disclosure would put the successful completion of the audit at risk.

Based on the inspection of relevant documents, the Ombudsman found that the Commission was justified in refusing public access to the documents at issue. She thus closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

That said, as the Commission has in the meantime confirmed that the audit has been concluded, the Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will grant the widest possible access to the documents, if the complainant were to pursue the matter.

The case concerned the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to Papua New Guinea to reject the complainant’s tender as abnormally low. The complainant argued that the Delegation failed to ask for specific clarifications, to reason its decision and based its rejection on elements unrelated to the price quoted in the tender.

The Ombudsman found that the Delegation should have been more specific when requesting clarifications from the complainant on the price and should have established a clear link between the price and all the elements taken into consideration in its assessment. The Delegation also failed to sufficiently substantiate its decision to reject the tender as abnormally low, in breach of the duty to state reasons. These shortcomings amount to maladministration.

While the Commission provided additional clarifications during the inquiry, the Ombudsman found that these clarifications did not sufficiently address the shortcomings identified.

The Ombudsman considered that it would not be appropriate to make a corresponding recommendation in this case as the contract has been awarded. She nevertheless made three suggestions aimed at preventing such problems occurring in future similar cases.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents held by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) related to Joint Return Operations (JROs) and National Return Operations (NROs) coordinated by Frontex for the period 1 July to 31 December 2024. Frontex identified 247 final return operation reports, 46 documents constituting Returns Operational Plan for 2024 and several related grant agreements. Frontex also extracted from its database some of the detailed information requested about return operations but expunged the remainder. Frontex refused access to the 46 documents constituting Returns Operational Plan for 2024 in their entirety whilst granting wide partial access to the grant agreements. Frontex argued that further disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security and international relations as well as commercial interests.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected a sample of the documents at issue and held a meeting with representatives of Frontex. Based on the inspection and the clarifications obtained during the meeting, the Ombudsman found that Frontex’s position was overall justified.

While the Ombudsman thus concluded that the way Frontex handled the request was reasonable and closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there had been no maladministration, she noted that, in the absence of a comprehensive list of documents falling within the scope of the request, it was difficult for the Ombudsman to determine with certainty how many documents Frontex identified as falling within the scope of the request. The Ombudsman therefore reiterated a previous recommendation that, as a matter of good administration, Frontex should provide to applicants a list of documents it identifies as falling within the scope of their requests for public access to documents.

The case concerned the refusal of the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) to give public access to seven documents concerning the extraction of information from communication devices of migrants. In refusing public access to parts of the documents, Eurojust relied on two exceptions set out in the EU legislation on public access to documents, that is, the need to protect the public interest as regards public security, and the need to protect personal data.

Based on the inspection of the documents at issue, the Ombudsman was not convinced by Eurojust’s arguments that wider disclosure of the documents would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security. The Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution, in which she asked Eurojust to reconsider its position on the request, with a view to giving wider public access to the documents at issue. She invited Eurojust, in doing so, to focus on three of the documents concerned, with follow-up adjustments to two additional documents.

Eurojust accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution and gave the complainant wider access to almost all documents. The Ombudsman welcomed Eurojust’s positive response to her proposal for a solution and closed the inquiry.

The complainant, a Member of the European Parliament, raised concerns about what he believed was a discrepancy between the AI Act and the Code of Practice for general purpose AI (GPAI). The European Commission recently confirmed that the Code, developed by stakeholders, is an ‘adequate’ voluntary tool for GPAI providers to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act. However, the complainant argued that the Code exempts GPAI providers from their duty under the AI Act to document or at least estimate the energy consumption of their models during their training and testing.

The Ombudsman inquired into this issue and found the Commission reasonably explained how its AI Office intends to assess the energy consumption of GPAI where the providers lack certain information necessary to make the estimation. Thus, the Commission provided the necessary assurances that it will fulfil the underlying objective of the AI Act in this regard. In this context, the Ombudsman noted that the Code is intended as a temporary solution, which may be further improved and is likely to be replaced by targeted instruments, such as ‘harmonised standards’, developed by the European Standardisation Organisations.

On this basis, the Ombudsman found that, at this stage, no further inquiries into this complaint are justified.

The case originally concerned the European Commission’s failure to keep the complainant informed on the state of play of an infringement complaint about the compliance of certain Spanish legislation with EU data protection rules and the e-Commerce Directive.

The Ombudsman requested the Commission to inform the complainant of the status of the complaint, the reasons for the delay in assessing it, and the Commission’s plan of action in this case. As the Commission did not provide sufficiently detailed information to the complainant, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team also met with the Commission representatives and inspected the Commission file to better understand how the Commission was handling the infringement complaint.

The Ombudsman found that, while there was a period of time when the Commission was not active on the file, once the relevant Spanish legislation became fully applicable, it regularly engaged with the national authorities and assessed the case. The Ombudsman also found that, although the Commission did not provide timely information to the complainant, which is regrettable, it provided detailed explanations during this inquiry concerning the time taken to handle the infringement complaint and its status. Moreover, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Spain during the inquiry regarding the first aspect of the infringement complaint.

Therefore, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified.

The case concerned a staff member of the European Central Bank (ECB) who considered that he was harassed by his line manager. He complained about this in early 2021. The ECB launched an administrative inquiry, and at the same time assigned the complainant to another workplace in the ECB for his own protection.

The administrative inquiry took two and half years, and was closed three years after the complainant first asked for help. The administrative inquiry found that the complainant had been harassed, and formally initiated a disciplinary procedure against the line manager.

During the ECB’s follow-up to the outcome of the administrative inquiry, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman. He alleged that there were unreasonable delays in the process.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the ECB finalised the disciplinary procedure and the complainant eventually returned to his main workplace.

The Ombudsman found that there had been unreasonable delays in all phases of the ECB’s handling of the matter, and that the ECB had failed to address important issues in its follow-up. The Ombudsman therefore proposed a solution to the ECB, namely that it apologise, pay compensation and ensure meaningful internal communication to staff about the harassment case.

In its reply to the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, the ECB expressed regret for what had happened. It organised additional internal communication about the harassment case. It did not, however, find that it had the elements necessary for considering financial compensation. The Ombudsman found that the harm that was caused by the ECB’s handling of the complainant’s harassment case had regrettably not been repaired by the ECB’s response to the proposal for a solution. However, as a recommendation reiterating the same points would not appear to be useful, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with suggestions for systemic improvements and again asking the ECB to engage with the complainant to identify the relevant financial consequences of its maladministration.

The case concerned the European Commission’s refusal to give partial or wider access to two documents related to a project funded in partnership with UNICEF. In refusing access, the Commission relied on five exceptions set out in EU legislation on access to documents, that is, the need to protect the public interest as regards international relations and the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or a Member State, as well as the protection of its decision-making process, the commercial interest of a third-party and the privacy and integrity of natural persons, including their personal data.

Based on the inspection of the documents at issue, the Ombudsman was not convinced by the Commission’s arguments that partial or wider disclosure would (seriously) undermine the protection of the interests invoked. The Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution asking the Commission to reconsider its position on the request, with a view to it granting the widest possible access to the documents at issue. She also reminded the Commission of its obligation to take decisions within a reasonable time and give reasons for its decisions.

The Commission accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution and provided the complainant with partial and wider access to the documents. The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s positive response to her proposal for a solution, which settled the complaint.  

The case concerned a request for public access to documents in relation to disciplinary proceedings following an investigation and recommendation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to the Commission. The Commission identified 23 documents as falling within the scope of the request and refused access to all documents in their entirety. In doing so, the Commission relied on the need to protect personal data.

When the complainant asked the Commission to review its decision, the Commission confirmed the refused access, invoking a general presumption of confidentiality arising from the protection of the purpose of investigations. The Commission also argued that public access cannot be granted to protect the personal data contained in the documents.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s application of a general presumption of confidentiality, after the disciplinary proceedings in question were closed, was not reasonable. Based on an inspection of the documents at issue, the Ombudsman considered that, while parts of the documents might need to be redacted to prevent the identification of individuals or to protect the purpose of future investigations, the documents do not contain sensitive information throughout. The Ombudsman thus proposed as a solution that the Commission re-consider its position on the access request with a view to providing meaningful partial access to the requested documents.

In reply, the Commission confirmed its reliance on a general presumption of confidentiality and considered that, in any event, meaningful partial access was not possible without disclosing personal data and putting at risk the protection of the purpose of the Commission’s disciplinary investigations.

The Ombudsman regretted that the Commission did not grant partial access following her proposal for a solution. The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s handling of this access request constituted maladministration.

As the Commission had reassessed its position on the complainant’s access request following the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution and had come to the same conclusion as in its confirmatory decision, the Ombudsman saw no useful purpose in continuing this inquiry with a formal recommendation on the matter. She therefore closed the case.

The case concerned the European Commission´s handling of an infringement complaint regarding Czechia´s decision to merge its Railways Authority with the Competition Authority. The main concern was that the merger may have infringed EU law and that Czechia may have failed to ensure independent and effective supervision of the rail sector.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons to the complainant for its finding that there was no breach of EU law by Czechia. Having examined the Commission’s explanations provided during the inquiry, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had investigated the matter diligently and that its decision to close the case had been based on solid grounds.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration as regards the Commission’s assessment of the infringement complaint. Given that, in the course of the inquiry, the Commission provided a detailed statement of reasons, this aspect of the case was settled. The Ombudsman suggested to the Commission to always provide complainants with an adequate statement of reasons when intending to close an infringement case.

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) handled a complaint by a staff member hired through an external contractor, alleging psychological harassment by their supervisor.

The Ombudsman found that EUSPA took the allegations seriously, opened an administrative inquiry, interviewed relevant persons and witnesses, and reached a conclusion following that inquiry. EUSPA thereby followed the procedural framework in place. The Ombudsman found no indication of a manifest error of assessment and thus no maladministration in EUSPA’s handling of the harassment complaint.

The Ombudsman nevertheless made a suggestion to EUSPA to develop better methods of communication for this type of harassment complaint, to ensure that persons not covered by the procedural safeguards in the EU Staff Regulations receive clear and consistent information throughout the procedure, including proper reasoning when the procedure is closed.

The case concerned how the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) handled the complainant’s reinstatement following a period of leave on personal grounds. The complainant considered that EMSA had failed to reinstate her at the earliest possible opportunity after she requested to return to work in 2022 and argued that, as a consequence, her seniority and salary step should be recalculated as if she had been reinstated from that date.

The Ombudsman found that EMSA had assessed the complainant’s suitability for all relevant vacancies that arose during the period concerned and had given her the priority consideration required under the applicable rules. The Ombudsman found no evidence of a manifest error in EMSA’s assessment that those vacancies were not suitable for the complainant and therefore no basis to conclude that her reinstatement had been wrongly delayed. The inquiry nevertheless highlighted the importance of clear information, regular follow-up and robust documentation in cases where reinstatement following leave on personal grounds is delayed.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. At the same time, the Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement that EMSA should ensure that staff members requesting leave on personal grounds exceeding six months are clearly informed of the potential risks of a delayed reinstatement and that staff members awaiting reinstatement receive regular updates on how their profiles are being assessed against available vacancies.

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) handled a complaint by a staff member hired through an external contractor, alleging psychological harassment by their supervisor.

The Ombudsman found that EUSPA took the allegations seriously, opened an administrative inquiry, interviewed relevant persons and witnesses, and reached a conclusion following that inquiry. EUSPA thereby followed the procedural framework in place. The Ombudsman found no indication of a manifest error of assessment and thus no maladministration in EUSPA’s handling of the harassment complaint.

The Ombudsman nevertheless made a suggestion to EUSPA to develop better methods of communication for this type of harassment complaint, to ensure that persons not covered by the procedural safeguards in the EU Staff Regulations receive clear and consistent information throughout the procedure, including proper reasoning when the procedure is closed.

The case concerned the time taken by the European Commission to conclude its assessment of an infringement complaint against Spain made in 2018. The infringement complaint concerned the legislative changes introduced in 2014 in the Spanish Ports Act and the subsequent extension, by the port authority of the Balearic Islands, of the duration of concessions to carry out recreational water sport activities on the port public domain. In their infringement complaint, the complainant argued, in essence, that the said legislative changes and the extension, by the port authority of the Balearic Islands, of the duration of the concessions breached Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission failed to demonstrate that it had been diligent and active on the case, and that it failed to provide convincing reasons to explain why it had not been able to finalise its assessment after more than seven years. The Ombudsman considered that this constituted maladministration and made a recommendation that the Commission should finalise its assessment without further delay. The Ombudsman also identified issues related to information provided to the complainant and record-keeping in relation to the EU Pilot dialogue that the Commission conducted with Spain and she made two corresponding suggestions for improvement in that regard.

While the Commission opened a new pre-infringement dialogue (formerly known as EU Pilot dialogue) with Spain following the opening of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission had not finalised its assessment of the infringement complaint when the Ombudsman was closing this case. Nor had it provided a reasonable justification for the time taken. As such, the Ombudsman confirmed her finding of maladministration. The Ombudsman will continue to monitor the Commission’s record-keeping in relation to pre-infringement dialogues as well as the way it communicates with complainants when closing those dialogues.

The case concerned a call for tenders organised by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) concerning the provision of clothing equipment for Frontex officers. The complainant, a company which also took part in the tender procedure, raised concerns with Frontex regarding the award of the contract to the winning company. More specifically, the complainant argued that Frontex should have rejected the winning tender because of the tenderer’s alleged financial difficulties and its deficiencies in the implementation of another contract, as well as because the offer it had submitted was, in the complainant’s view, abnormally low.

The Ombudsman found that Frontex had correctly carried out the eligibility check of the successful tenderer, in accordance with the applicable rules. Moreover, she found that Frontex’s assessment that the successful tender was not abnormally low was reasonable and in line with the applicable rules.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint against Spain concerning the reform of its Criminal Code. The complaint concerned in particular the sanctions foreseen for the use of public assets by public authorities or officials for private purposes. The complainant contended that the Commission had been unduly delayed in dealing with his infringement complaint.   

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry, asking the Commission to explain the time taken to deal with the complaint. The Ombudsman inquiry team also inspected the documents related to the infringement complaint. On the basis of the inquiry, the Ombudsman found that the Commission had been taking regular action on the matter since 2022, and that it had provided a reasonable explanation as regards the time taken to deal with the file. That notwithstanding, the Ombudsman regretted that the Commission did not provide the complainant with more substantial updates at an earlier stage.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified.