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 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 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.

This case concerned the European Commission’s handling of a journalist’s request for public access to documents related to a work trip to Israel by the Commission’s Coordinator on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life. The Commission declined to confirm or deny the existence of such documents, referring to EU data protection rules. It argued that even acknowledging the existence of such documents would amount to a transfer of personal data, without a necessity for a specific purpose in the public interest, which it concluded the complainant had not demonstrated.

During the inquiry, the Commission confirmed to the Ombudsman inquiry team that the trip had taken place and that it had covered the costs for this trip, thereby addressing the core transparency concerns raised by the complainant.

The Ombudsman found that there was a public interest in public scrutiny of the Coordinator’s professional activities, given the role’s visibility and the sensitivity of the topic. However, after the Commission had confirmed the work trip and that it had covered the cost in accordance with the applicable rules, the Ombudsman took the view that the public interest in scrutinising the Coordinator’s professional activities had been satisfied.

The Ombudsman made, however, a suggestion for improvement to the Commission, namely that it should proactively publish summaries of the Coordinator’s official activities, including information on work trips, to enhance transparency.

The Ombudsman closed the case concluding that no further inquiries were justified.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents held by the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) concerning conditions for unaccompanied minors in EU-funded refugee facilities in Greece. The EUAA identified 53 documents as falling within the scope of the request and granted partial access to all of them. In refusing full access, the EUAA invoked several exceptions to the right of public access to documents, based on the protection of privacy and the integrity of individuals, its decision-making process and the public interest as regards public security. In particular, the EUAA argued that the requested documents contain sensitive information about individuals staying in specific facilities and preliminary information about the situation in these facilities, provided by national authorities on a confidential basis. The disclosure of the latter information could undermine the trust of these authorities towards the EUAA and, consequently, the EUAA’s decision-making processes and public security.

Dissatisfied with this reply and the applied redactions, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the unredacted versions of the requested documents and discussed the applied redactions with EUAA representatives. Based on this, the Ombudsman accepted the EUAA’s arguments regarding the need to protect the privacy and integrity of particularly vulnerable individuals staying in specific facilities. She also acknowledged the EUAA’s wide margin of discretion in applying the exception concerning public security, which could be adversely affected if the EUAA disclosed information shared by the national authorities in confidence, thereby discouraging them from closely cooperating with the EUAA and its deployed staff. Moreover, in view of the sensitive working conditions of EUAA staff deployed to assist the national authorities, the Ombudsman considered that the EUAA could reasonably seek to protect its staff’s comments relating to specific facilities, based on the exception concerning the protection of the EUAA’s decision-making process.

That said, the Ombudsman was not entirely convinced by all the EUAA’s justifications regarding the applied redactions and their consistency. However, given the wide partial access that the EUAA had already granted to the requested documents, the Ombudsman found that no further inquiries into this complaint were justified. She therefore closed the case, making one suggestion for improvement.

 

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.

The three cases concerned how the European Commission applied its Better Regulation rules and other procedural requirements when preparing legislative proposals concerning corporate sustainability due diligence (983/2025/MIK), countering migrant smuggling (2031/2024/VB) and the Common Agricultural Policy (1379/2024/MIK). The Commission considered these proposals to be urgent and, therefore, omitted steps foreseen in its rules, such as impact assessments and public consultations. The complainants, which are civil society organisations, considered these omissions to be in breach of the Commission’s Better Regulation rules. In two cases, the complainants also argued that the Commission failed to assess the legislative proposals’ consistency with the EU’s climate goals, as required by the European Climate Law. In one case, the complainant was further concerned that the Commission breached its Rules of Procedure on inter-service consultations.

Based on her inquiries, the Ombudsman found procedural shortcomings in how the Commission prepared the legislative proposals in question, which, taken together, amounted to maladministration. To address these shortcomings, the Ombudsman recommended that the Commission ensure a predictable, consistent and non-arbitrary application of its Better Regulation rules, by defining ‘urgent’ situations that justify a derogation from their requirements, as well as by recording and explaining the reasons for any derogations granted. Furthermore, where derogations are granted, the Commission should establish a procedure to ensure that the urgent preparation of legislative proposals still complies with the principles of a transparent, evidence-based and inclusive law-making process. To assist the Commission in this task, the Ombudsman also made four suggestions for improvement, which included: clarifying its stakeholder consultation rules for urgent proposals; ensuring that the analytical documents replacing impact assessments and outlining the evidence supporting its proposals are published in a timely manner to enable a public debate before the legislation is adopted; issuing guidance on implementing climate consistency assessments; providing and recording justifications when shortening inter-service consultation periods below established thresholds.

In its reply to the Ombudsman, the Commission agreed to reflect on defining ‘urgent’ situations during the upcoming revision of the Better Regulation rules, as well as to record and publish the reasons for applying any derogations from their requirements. The Commission also committed to ensure targeted consultations on its ‘urgent’ proposals, to publish the analytical documents with evidence supporting its proposals within three months of adoption, to include climate consistency assessments in both analytical documents and explanatory memoranda for future proposals and to provide justifications for shortened inter-service consultations.

The complainants, in their comments on the Commission’s reply, considered that the Commission’s commitments are neither clear nor concrete enough to guarantee a transparent, inclusive and evidence-based law-making process.

The Ombudsman welcomed the overall constructive reply of the Commission to her recommendations and suggestions for improvement. That said, the Commission’s response does not yet provide sufficient clarity on the concrete steps it intends to take to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations and suggestions for improvement.

The Ombudsman will therefore monitor this matter based on future complaints and once the Commission has finalised the revision of the Better Regulation rules. At this stage, no further inquiries are justified, and the Ombudsman closed the three cases.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents related to the expenses of a university in the context of an EU-funded project. The complainant had submitted his request to the European Commission in July 2025.

The Commission first replied in September 2025. It identified ten documents as falling within the scope of the access request, to which it refused to give public access in their entirety. In doing so, the Commission argued that disclosure could undermine the commercial interests of the university concerned.

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 an explicit reply to the complainant’s confirmatory application as soon as possible. In the absence of a reply within the time limit set, the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents in question, along with documentation on the consultation of the university concerned.

The Commission replied to the complainant in May 2026, granting wide partial access to the documents at issue. The complainant, in his comments on the Commission’s confirmatory decision, did not challenge the remaining redactions. 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 the Commission’s refusal to give public access to documents related to State aid investigations, in which persons had been recognised as an ‘interested party’ despite being neither a beneficiary of the aid nor a competitor. In refusing access, the Commission relied on a general presumption of non-disclosure, arguing that the release of any document would undermine the purpose of its investigations and the commercial interests of the companies concerned. The complainant contested the Commission’s position. Specifically, he contended that there would be an overriding public interest in disclosure, that is, the need to scrutinise the Commission’s practice of admitting complainants as ‘interested parties’. In particular, the complaint raised concerns that the Commission might interpret this notion too narrowly, thereby recognising only beneficiaries or competitors as ‘interested parties’ entitled to lodge a complaint.

Based on her inquiry, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant sought statistical information about the Commission’s practice rather than access to specific documents. In light of this, the Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution, inviting the Commission to deal with the complainant’s request as a request for information and to provide him with relevant information about its State aid procedure that would address the concerns that he had raised.

The Commission accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution and provided the complainant with detailed information on its practice related to the investigation of potentially unlawful State aid, including information on sample cases. The complainant was satisfied with this reply. The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s positive response to her proposal for a solution and closed the inquiry.

The case concerned how the European Commission ensures that Romania fully implements a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unlawful refusal to issue identity cards to Romanian citizens domiciled in other Member States.

The Ombudsman found that the matter appeared to be evolving at national level and that the Commission had been monitoring the situation actively and at reasonable intervals.

The Ombudsman closed the case with the conclusion that no further inquiries are justified at this stage. However, the Ombudsman requested the Commission to update her, within six months, on its assessment of Romania’s compliance with the judgment and any further action taken by the Commission.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents related to coffee development programmes in Ethiopia. The complainant submitted his request to the Commission in August 2024.

The Commission first replied in December 2024. It granted full access to two documents, refused access to three documents in their entirety and gave partial access to the remaining 31 documents. In doing so, the Commission argued that (full) disclosure could undermine the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, the protection of personal data and commercial interests, as well as the protection of the public interest as regards international relations.

The complainant contested the Commission's decision by making a 'confirmatory application' in January 2025. In the absence of a reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in May 2025.

In June 2025, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked the Commission to reply to the complainant as soon as possible.

Following several exchanges with the Commission on the matter, on 20 April 2026, the Ombudsman sent a final reminder to the Commission, urging it to adopt a confirmatory decision by 12 May 2026 at the latest. The Commission failed to do so.

Since the Commission had still not replied to the complainant’s confirmatory application more than 15 months after the statutory timeline established by Regulation 1049/2001 has expired, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of maladministration.

The complainant worked as an expert for an external EU contractor on an EU-funded project in Tanzania managed by the Delegation of the European Union to Tanzania and the East African Community. The complainant claimed that the contractor breached Tanzanian law by failing to register in Tanzania, preventing him from obtaining a valid work permit. Subsequently, the contractor informed the complainant of its decision to terminate his contract, taking into account concerns about the complainant’s work raised by the EU Delegation.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s concerns about how the Delegation handled both matters. In this regard, the Ombudsman referred to her consistently taken view that, where EU institutions seek the replacement of experts working on EU projects, those individuals should be heard before they are replaced. While the Commission argued that it did not ask for the expert’s replacement, the Ombudsman found that the Commission had been involved in the replacement decision. The Ombudsman thus found that the Commission failed to ensure that the complainant’s right to be heard was respected prior to his replacement, which amounted to maladministration.  She made a suggestion for improvement aimed at preventing the issue from occurring in the future. 

In addition, the Ombudsman found that, as the complainant’s contract had been terminated, no further inquiries were justified into the work permit issue. She nevertheless made a suggestion for improvement to the Commission, inviting it to verify the matter as it may affect other experts working on the EU project. 

 

The case concerned the time taken by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to decide on a complaint that was made in 2022 concerning the processing of the complainant’s personal data.

In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the EDPS finalised its preliminary assessment of the issues raised. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman found that, while the EDPS provided some explanations for the delay, the overall period of handling the complaint constituted maladministration.

The Ombudsman welcomes that the EDPS has taken measures aimed at addressing its backlog to avoid similar situations in the future.