The case concerned the European Central Bank’s (ECB) failure to reply adequately to the complainant's request for information concerning the ECB's competence to ensure the enforcement of financial regulation and consumer protection legislation in Member-States. The Ombudsman asked the ECB to provide the complainant with a detailed answer concerning its supervisory role vis a vis the national central banks, but also the role of the Single Supervisory Mechanism in supervising private entities. The ECB replied in a clear and comprehensive manner. The Ombudsman therefore decided to close the case.

The case concerned the European Council's refusal to grant the complainant public access to two documents in relation to the 2010 Task Force to strengthen economic governance across the EU. The European Council initially argued that the publication of the documents would undermine the protection of the financial, monetary or economic policy of the Union or a Member State and of the institution's decision-making process.

Having inspected the relevant documents, the Ombudsman took the preliminary view that their content did not appear as sensitive as claimed by the European Council, given in particular that the documents dated from 2010. The European Council then reconsidered its assessment and released the two documents to the complainant. The Ombudsman found that the European Council had thus settled the matter complained about.

The case concerned a complaint that the European Central Bank did not, as some central banks had done in the past, publish a scoreboard on compliance by Eurozone Member States with the so-called "convergence criteria". The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the ECB is not obliged to publish such an overview, given, in particular, that Member States are now called upon to comply with different criteria. She also found that the ECB and the European Commission publish relevant and accessible statistical information on market surveillance. There was therefore no maladministration.

The case concerned a delay by the European Banking Authority (EBA) in dealing with the complainant's request for the EBA to investigate an alleged breach of EU law by the Estonian Financial Supervisory Authority. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the EBA was able to justify its delay, for the most part. For this reason, and also because the EBA apologised for the delay and undertook to improve its procedure, the Ombudsman did not find maladministration. Since, in the course of the inquiry, the EBA established internal deadlines for dealing with similar requests, the Ombudsman encouraged it to formalise these deadlines by amending its Rules of Procedure. She thus closed the case with a further remark.

The case concerned the allegedly insufficient explanation given by the European Commission concerning its decision not to initiate an infringement proceeding against Austria.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue by asking the Commission to provide further information about its decision. In reply, the Commission clarified its position. The Ombudsman found that the information thus provided was coherent, sufficient and reasonable. She therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned Europol's refusal to give public access to a document on the implementation of the EU-US Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) Agreement. In order to ascertain whether Europol correctly applied the relevant rules on access to its documents, the Ombudsman needed to see the document concerned. However, Europol claimed it was unable to allow the Ombudsman to inspect the document, since to do so required the consent of the US authorities and the US authorities had refused to give consent. According to the "technical modalities" agreed between the EU and the US for implementing the TFTP Agreement, the US has a right of veto on the sharing by Europol with third parties of any information provided by the US. The US made use of this veto in this instance and refused consent. The Ombudsman met with the US ambassador to the EU but the US maintained the veto. Accordingly, although Europol cooperated fully with the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman was unable to inspect the document. The Ombudsman therefore had no alternative but to close her inquiry. However, she asked the European Parliament to consider whether it is acceptable that an agreement with a foreign government should prevent the Ombudsman from doing her job. She pointed out, in particular, that the provisions of the "technical modalities", unlike the TFTP Agreement itself, had never been sent to the Council or to Parliament for their approval.