The complainant asked the European Commission for public access to documents concerning its exchanges with the Hungarian government on judicial independence in the context of the Commission's assessment of Hungary's eligibility for cohesion funds. After consulting with the Hungarian authorities, the Commission refused access to some of the documents, invoking two exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents. More specifically, the Commission argued that disclosure would undermine the purpose of its investigation as regards Hungary’s eligibility for cohesion funds and its decision-making process. The complainant asked the Commission to review its decision (by making a ‘confirmatory application’). When the Commission did not reply within the applicable time limits, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s implicit refusal to grant public access to the requested documents. During the Ombudsman's inquiry, the Commission adopted its confirmatory decision. It maintained its decision to withhold access but invoked an additional exception, arguing that the European Parliament had initiated court proceedings concerning the matter in the meantime, and disclosure could undermine these ongoing proceedings.

The Ombudsman’s inspection showed that the requested documents contain Hungary’s self-assessment, formal questionnaires sent by the Commission to the Hungarian authorities, and the official replies from the relevant Hungarian authorities to those questions. The requested documents thus form the basis of the Commission’s decision against which Parliament initiated court proceedings. They were neither drawn up for the purpose of the specific court proceedings, nor do they contain internal legal positions on contentious issues throughout.

The Ombudsman took the view that the Commission had not sufficiently demonstrated how disclosing the documents could undermine the court proceedings in question. The Ombudsman was also not convinced by the Commission’s argument that disclosure could undermine its investigation. In addition, the Ombudsman stressed the importance of informing the public of the Commission and the Hungarian authorities’ actions to protect the financial interests of the EU and to ensure that the rule of law is respected. Therefore, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s refusal to grant wide public access to the requested documents constituted maladministration and recommended that the Commission reconsider its position on the access request.

In reply, the Commission confirmed its position that disclosure of the requested documents would undermine the serenity of the court proceedings brought by Parliament and its investigation as regards Hungary’s eligibility for cohesion funds. However, the Ombudsman found that the Commission did not provide convincing explanations as to why no wider access could be given to these documents. Therefore, the Ombudsman confirmed her finding of maladministration and closed the case.

The case concerned a request for public access to a financial report held by the European Parliament concerning the now dissolved political group “Identity and Democracy” (ID). Parliament refused access to the report in its entirety. In doing so, it invoked two exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosing the report would undermine the protection of the purpose of investigations and audits and its own ongoing decision-making process.

The complainant asked Parliament to review its decision by making a confirmatory application, arguing that there is a compelling overriding public interest in disclosure given the use of public funds. Parliament maintained its refusal to disclose the document, adding that the document forms part of an ongoing investigation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) into the alleged misuse of funds by the ID Group. Dissatisfied with this reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the document at issue. The inspection confirmed that the requested document contains an assessment of the finances of the political group. Parliament confirmed to the Ombudsman that the EPPO investigation was still ongoing. The Ombudsman found that Parliament was justified in refusing access to the document. She thus closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The complainant asked the European Commission in March 2024 for public access to documents related to its 2023 reassessment of the application of the ‘rule of law procedure’ in Hungary (based on the Conditionality Regulation). The Commission identified four quarterly reports and several exchanges between Hungary and the Commission as falling within the scope of the request but refused access to all documents. In withholding access, it invoked exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure could undermine the purpose of an investigation and its ongoing decision-making process under the Conditionality Regulation.

The complainant asked the Commission to review its position (by making a ‘confirmatory application’) in April 2024. As the Commission failed to reply to the complainant's confirmatory application within the applicable time limit, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in June 2024.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s confirmatory application and asked the Commission to reply as soon as possible. The Commission replied to the complainant in December 2025, that is over 19 months after they submitted the confirmatory application.

As the Commission replied to the complainant’s confirmatory application, the Ombudsman closed this case. However, she unequivocally criticised the significant delay incurred by the Commission in replying to the complainant’s request and reminded the Commission that it should urgently address the issue of delays in its processing of requests for public access to documents.

The case concerned how the European Commission (EU Delegation to the African Union) handled a grant application and concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest.

The complainant took part in a call for proposals for a project to support pan-African electoral capacities. The Delegation rejected the complainant’s application because it sought EU funding above the maximum percentage allowed under the call. The complainant claimed that this was a typographical error and that the Delegation should have requested clarifications instead of rejecting its application. The complainant also claimed that an expert who had been involved in the development of the project funded under this call was working for an entity that submitted an application under the call.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission, based on its own internal guidelines, should have considered the complainant’s mistake as an ‘obvious clerical error’ and asked the complainant for clarification and/or corrected the complainant’s error. She also found that the Commission failed to adequately assess the complainant’s allegations of a potential conflict of interest. These two shortcomings amounted to maladministration. For both findings, the Ombudsman considered that it would not be appropriate to make corresponding recommendations, as in the meantime the grant has already 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 related to the European Commission’s proposal for applying the 'rule of law procedure' in Hungary (proposal for a Council Decision based on the Conditionality Regulation). The Commission identified fourteen documents as falling within the scope of the request and disclosed all but parts of three documents. In withholding access to these parts, it invoked two exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure could undermine ongoing court proceedings and its decision-making process.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry and sought to inspect the documents in question. Her inquiry team met twice with Commission representatives to discuss the case. Based on her inquiry, the Ombudsman was not convinced by the application of the two exceptions to public access as invoked by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore made a proposal for a solution, asking the Commission to reconsider its position on the request, with a view to giving increased public access.

The Commission accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution and gave full access to the requested documents. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry, welcoming the Commission’s positive response.

The case concerned the refusal by the European External Action Service (EEAS) to give full public access to documents related to investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into misconduct by staff members. In refusing access, the EEAS relied on an exception under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure would undermine the need to protect the privacy and integrity of the individuals mentioned in the documents, including the persons concerned by the OLAF investigations. In addition, the EEAS redacted the names of companies mentioned in the documents so as to protect their reputation, given that they had not been subject to the OLAF investigations.

The Ombudsman found that the complainant had not established a need for disclosure of the personal data in the public interest, as required by the EU legislation on data protection. The Ombudsman also considered the limited redactions of commercial information to be reasonable and could not identify any overriding public interest in this regard. The Ombudsman therefore concluded that the EEAS had been justified in refusing to disclose the documents at issue in full.

The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry into the refusal of access finding no maladministration. While the complainant was also dissatisfied with the fair solution agreed with the EEAS that meant that the scope of his access request was limited to 50 pages, the Ombudsman considered that there were no further inquiries justified, given that, in the meantime, the EEAS had started processing a new, wider request for public access to documents made by the complainant.

Following revelations that a (former) director-general at the European Commission travelled to Qatar and received related hospitality at the expense of third parties, giving rise to conflict of interest concerns, the Ombudsman first wrote to the Commission in March 2023. She asked to obtain information on the extent of this practice and how the Commission checks that there are no conflicts of interest when third parties cover the expenses incurred by Commission staff.

Shortly after, the Commission updated its rules concerning third-party contributions to work travel. The Ombudsman concluded at the time that, if applied diligently, these rules would prevent third-party contributions for work travel giving rise to conflicts of interest.

However, the reply of the Commission showed that, although there were only limited examples of work travel by Commission staff that were paid for by third parties, some of these occurred at the highest level of the Commission’s management.

Against this background, the Ombudsman opened this own-initiative inquiry to review a sample of such cases, prior to the entry into force of the updated rules. The purpose of this inquiry was to determine how the Commission assessed potential conflicts of interest related to work travel paid for by third parties, and what steps it took to mitigate the risks of any conflicts of interest that were identified.

The inquiry did not identify any case that gave rise to concerns of conflict of interest other than those of the (former) Commission director-general concerned by the above revelations. The inquiry indicated, however, that the issues were wider in scope. Given that the European Anti-Fraud Office has investigated the matter and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has started an investigation, the Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries into the matter were justified.  

That said, the inquiry demonstrated shortcomings in relation to how the Commission implemented its previous rules on work travel. In particular, the Ombudsman found that the Commission did not record how it had substantively assessed the risks of conflict of interest related to contributions paid by third parties. The Commission also failed to record what the value of the third party contributions was. As these shortcomings are still relevant in how the Commission applies the updated rules, the Ombudsman made two suggestions for improvement to this end.