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 how the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) addressed allegations of fundamental rights violations in its activities on the Greek island of Samos. The complainants were concerned that the way caseworkers deployed in the EUAA asylum support teams conducted interviews with vulnerable asylum seekers was against EU law, and that the EUAA had failed to address this. In addition, the complainants were concerned with how the EUAA dealt with the asylum seekers’ reports of pushbacks.

The Ombudsman found that, at the time of the complaint, the EUAA had failed to ensure that caseworkers deployed in its asylum support teams were prepared to properly conduct interviews with vulnerable asylum seekers, including as regards how to take into account indicators of vulnerabilities when these emerge for the first time during the asylum interview. The Ombudsman further found that the EUAA had failed to provide vulnerable asylum seekers with an appropriate procedure to report mistakes made during interviews and to have such reports reviewed by the EUAA. The Ombudsman found that this constituted maladministration and made four recommendations to the EUAA to address the shortcomings.

The Ombudsman also sent these recommendations to her counterparts from the European Network of Ombudsmen (ENO), seeking their views on how compliance with fundamental rights is ensured in the cooperation between EUAA caseworkers and national asylum officials.

In addition, the Ombudsman identified important shortcomings in relation to how the EUAA dealt with the asylum seekers’ disclosure of experiences of pushbacks during interviews. As the EUAA started implementing measures to remedy these shortcomings during the Ombudsman’s inquiry, she did not find maladministration but instead made two suggestions for improvement.

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 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 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 the reasoned opinion that the European Commission sent to Belgium in the context of an infringement procedure regarding its transposition of the Whistleblower Protection Directive.

The Commission refused access to the document, which forms part of the file for an ongoing infringement procedure. In doing this, the Commission relied on a general presumption of non-disclosure, based on the need to protect the purpose of an ongoing investigation. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

While the Ombudsman considered that adequate protection of whistleblowers is essential, she found, based on the inspection of the document at issue, that the Commission was justified in relying on the general presumption of non-disclosure to refuse access to the document. She therefore closed the case.