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.

The case concerned the refusal of the European Investment Bank (EIB) to give full public access to documents in relation to investigations and recommendations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The EIB identified numerous documents as falling within the scope of the complainant’s request, including OLAF final reports and recommendations, as well as the EIB’s own disciplinary decisions. While the EIB gave partial access to ten of the 13 identified final OLAF reports, it refused access to the remaining documents in their entirety. Concerning the EIB’s disciplinary decisions the EIB provided a summary of the disciplinary follow-up actions taken. In doing so, the EIB relied on exceptions to public access in its transparency rules, arguing that full disclosure would undermine the protection of personal data, the purpose of investigations and its decision-making process.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry, and her inquiry team inspected the documents at issue in the complainant’s public access request. The inspection showed that a significant amount of the information contained in those documents constituted personal data, which, if disclosed, could make the individual EIB staff members investigated by OLAF identifiable. Given the delicate balancing exercise required to determine whether disclosure could lead to the identification of individuals and considering that the EIB had provided the complainant with an overview of the follow-up actions taken and the sanctions imposed, the Ombudsman considered that the EIB’s refusal to give full public access was overall reasonable. She therefore closed the case finding no maladministration. That said, while a significant amount of the information contained in the withheld documents clearly constitutes personal data, the Ombudsman noted that an amount of the information, even if limited, was administrative in nature and did not constitute personal data. She thus made a suggestion for improvement that the EIB consider whether at least some parts of its disciplinary decisions containing purely administrative information could be disclosed without risking the disclosure of personal data.

The case concerned the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency’s (CINEA) decision to terminate a grant agreement in the area of renewable transport and to recover the full amount of its financial contribution to the project.

The Ombudsman found that CINEA had failed to follow the procedure set out in the grant agreement and that there were indications that CINEA’s decision may not have been entirely fair and proportionate. However, given the complainant´s insolvency and the fact that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has been investigating potential irregularities in the context of the project, CINEA cannot be expected to meaningfully review its decision at this stage. Therefore, the Ombudsman concluded that no further inquiries are justified and closed the case.

The Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement to CINEA to ensure that similar issues do not arise in future cases.

The case concerned the time taken by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to decide on two complaints made by the same complainant in 2023 concerning the processing of the complainant’s personal data.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the EDPS provided reasonable explanations concerning the handling of the cases and the delay. The EDPS has also finalised its preliminary assessment of the issues raised.

The Ombudsman also noted that the EDPS took measures aimed at addressing its backlog to avoid similar situations in the future and therefore closed the case with the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified. 

The case concerned the European Central Bank's (ECB) handling of procedural aspects related to a whistleblower report that the complainant[1] submitted in 2022. The whistleblower report concerned an alleged family relationship between a hiring officer and the person who was hired.

The complainant experienced behaviour by the alleged wrongdoers that they believed amounted to inappropriate behaviour (including harassment). The complainant requested a related administrative investigation.

The ECB decided to assess the whistleblower report jointly with the issue of the alleged inappropriate behaviour. It also informed the complainant that the evidence submitted did not warrant the opening of an administrative investigation. The complainant contested both points through an administrative complaint, which the ECB declared inadmissible for lack of individual interest (the joint handling of the two issues) or for lack of any challengeable decision (the failure to open an administrative investigation).

The complainant turned to the Ombudsman, contesting the ECB's decision of inadmissibility. In the course of the Ombudsman's inquiry, the complainant also asked the Ombudsman to look more closely into the handling of whistleblower reports and complaints at the ECB.

The Ombudsman found that the reasons given by the ECB for declaring the complainant's administrative complaint inadmissible were not convincing.

The Ombudsman also noted that, during her inquiry, significant developments in the matter had occurred and that related high-level internal investigations were still ongoing. Moreover, the ECB was finalising an own-initiative review of its reporting, investigation and disciplinary framework. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman concluded that no further inquiries were justified at that point in time, and closed the inquiry.

 

[1] For reasons of anonymity, including as regards the gender of the complainant, the text refers to the complainant as ‘they’/’their’/’them’.

 

The case concerned a request for public access to a document related to the European Commission’s decision to designate a mineral extraction project located in Serbia as a ‘Strategic Project’ under the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA). Specifically, the complainant sought access to the relevant approval of this decision by the non-EU country concerned. The complainant had submitted his request to the European Commission in July 2025.

The Commission first replied in August 2025. It identified one document as falling within the scope of the access request, to which it refused to give public access in its entirety. In doing so, the Commission argued that disclosure could undermine the EU’s international relations with the country where the project is located.

The complainant contested the Commission's decision by making a 'confirmatory application' in September 2025. When the Commission failed to provide an explicit reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in October 2025.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s implicit refusal to grant public access and, as a first step, asked the Commission to adopt as soon as possible an explicit reply to the complainant’s confirmatory application. In the absence of a reply within the time limit set, the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the document in question, along with documentation on the consultation of the non-EU country concerned.

The Commission replied to the complainant in May 2026, granting wide partial access to the document at issue, redacting only limited personal data, which the complainant did not challenge. The Ombudsman therefore considered that the complaint into the Commission’s implicit refusal of access had been settled by the access now granted. That said, the Ombudsman regretted the delay incurred by the Commission in handling the complainant’s access request, which persisted even after she had opened her inquiry. The Ombudsman continues to closely monitor the matter of delays based on complaints submitted to her.

 

The case concerned how the European External Action Service (EEAS) dealt with a subcontractor that provided expertise and services in the IT sector. According to the complainant, it was not paid in full for the work it had carried out. After the complainant’s negotiations with the main contractor remained fruitless, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman, taking issue with how the EEAS handled the dispute in question.

The Ombudsman recalled that the absence of a direct contractual relationship between an EU institution and a subcontractor does not exempt the former, acting in its capacity as a public authority, from its obligation to respect the subcontractor's fundamental right to good administration. This obligation encompasses, amongst other things, the duty of the EU institution to monitor the behaviour of its contractor and, if necessary, to insist that the contractor fulfils its obligations towards the subcontractor. In the case at hand, the Ombudsman noted that the EEAS had made sure that its requirements on deliverables and documentation were diligently communicated by the main contractor to the subcontractor and that the EEAS had made payments for the validated work carried out. Overall, the EEAS had undertaken multiple efforts to find a solution for the different subcontracting issues.

The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by the EEAS.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dealt with requests for review from a candidate who was unsuccessful in two selection procedures. Amongst other things, the complainant contended that EPSO had not addressed adequately his concerns, and questioned whether it had adequately reviewed his performance.

After the Ombudsman opened the inquiry, EPSO provided additional replies to the complainant. The Ombudsman found that there were inconsistencies between these and the replies he initially received, and that it was not clear whether EPSO actually reviewed its initial decisions. In the course of the inquiry, EPSO provided further clarifications to explain this.

The Ombudsman closed the case finding that no further inquiries are justified, as EPSO ultimately provided reasonable explanations about how it handled the complainant’s requests for review. However, the inquiry revealed issues with EPSO’s standard replies to requests for review. To address these, the Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement to EPSO, asking it to ensure that, in future, candidates who have filed a request for review, receive a clear, accurate and complete reply that informs them whether a review has taken place and about the reasons for EPSO’s decision.

 

The case concerned the refusal by the European Parliament to give public access to documents related to two investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into staff misconduct. In refusing access, Parliament relied on four exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure would undermine the privacy and integrity of the persons concerned by the OLAF investigations, the purpose of these investigations, ongoing court proceedings, and its decision-making process.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue and, based on the inspection, the Ombudsman considered that, as regards the documents related to one of the investigations, it was reasonable for Parliament to apply the general presumption of non-disclosure that EU institutions can rely on while OLAF investigations are ongoing and for as long as a reasonable time for follow-up activities by authorities implementing OLAF’s recommendations has not elapsed. 

Given the specific circumstances of the two OLAF investigations at issue, the Ombudsman also found that Parliament had been justified in considering that redacting the documents would not leave any substantive content as they contain a considerable amount of personal data. Since the complainant had not established a need for disclosure of the personal data for a specific purpose in the public interest, as required by the EU legislation on data protection, the Ombudsman found no maladministration and closed the case.

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) terminated the contract of an external expert following allegations of unprofessional conduct towards interpreters during an asylum support mission. The complainant argued that the decision lacked sufficient reasoning, that he had not been properly informed of the substance of the allegations, that his rights of defence had not been respected, and that the measures taken were disproportionate. The EUAA maintained that the termination of the contract was based on multiple credible reports of misconduct, that the complainant had been informed of the concerns through meetings and other communications, and that confidentiality considerations limited the disclosure of certain details.

The Ombudsman found that, although the termination letter itself did not clearly and sufficiently set out the factual and legal reasoning underpinning the decision, the broader context showed that the EUAA had engaged with the complainant on several occasions prior to the termination of his contract. The Ombudsman considered that the complainant had been made aware of the nature of the concerns and had been given opportunities to respond. The EUAA had also attempted to address the situation through less severe measures before proceeding to termination. While it would have been more in line with good administrative practice for the EUAA to keep more structured records and provide more detailed reasoning in the termination letter, the Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error of assessment or a procedural shortcoming sufficiently serious to amount to maladministration.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration in the EUAA’s handling of the decision to terminate the complainant’s contract.

The case was about how the European Commission informed the public about the status of its legislative initiative concerning the framework for sustainable food systems (FSFS), which formed part of the ‘Farm to Fork’ Strategy. Following this initiative’s inception and public consultation, the Commission did not include it in its 2024 work programme. The complainant, an organisation that participated in the public consultation, was concerned that the Commission had failed to inform the public about the initiative’s status and reasons for the delay in adopting a legislative proposal in relation to it.

During the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission explained that, in 2023, it had revised its political priorities due to economic disruptions caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the farmers’ protests throughout the EU, and broader stakeholder concerns about EU agriculture. In 2025, the Commission adopted a new ‘Vision for Agriculture and Food’. As this document did not mention the FSFS, the Commission believed it was clear to stakeholders that this initiative had been discontinued. Moreover, the Commission said that it was in the process of updating information on all its policy initiatives available on its website.

The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s commitment to provide greater transparency about the status of its policy initiatives and considered that no further inquiries into this matter were justified.

The case concerned a request for public access to the opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on the Commission’s draft impact assessment report regarding its legislative initiative on Multimodal Digital Mobility Services (MDMS) from September 2023. The Commission refused access to the document in its entirety, arguing that disclosure would undermine its ongoing decision-making process.

Following the inspection of the requested document by her inquiry team, the Ombudsman was not convinced that its disclosure would have seriously affected, prolonged or complicated the completion of the impact assessment and the adoption of the Commission’s legislative proposals. Given the clear case-law that requires EU institutions to apply a particularly high standard of transparency to legislative documents, the Ombudsman took the view that the Commission’s reasoning was insufficient and that it was not justified in applying the exception for the protection of its ongoing decision-making. Therefore, she considered that the Commission’s refusal to grant public access to the document, even in part, constituted maladministration.

In the meantime, the Commission published its legislative proposals in relation to the ‘Passenger Package’, accompanied by a Staff Working Document containing the revised impact assessment. The Staff Working Document reproduces the content of the September 2023 RSB opinion and includes an overview of how the Commission has given effect to the RSB’s observations. Given that the content of the RSB opinion in question is now public and that the Commission published its legislative proposals, the Ombudsman considered that making a recommendation to the Commission would not serve a useful purpose and she closed the case.