The two cases concerned the European Commission’s handling of an infringement complaint against Finland regarding the refusal by the Finnish authorities to recognise professional qualifications for psychotherapists issued by a university based in the United Kingdom. The complainants – students who were affected by the non-recognition – argued that the Commission had mishandled the infringement complaint and failed to take a decision on it within a reasonable time.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission was delayed in starting to assess the infringement complaint and it took it about seven years to assess it, which is a long time. However, the duration of the assessment was mainly due to factors that were either justified or at least could not be attributed to the Commission. In particular, the Commission waited until the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a preliminary ruling on the matter and then until subsequent related national proceedings and follow-up actions in Finland were also finalised.

As the Commission closed the case in March 2025, giving reasonable explanations for its assessment, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified into the matter.

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 his infringement complaint, the complainant argued, in essence, that the said legislatives 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.

The case concerned how the European Commission dealt with a request for public access to documents concerning the implementation of a judgment related to European harmonised standards. In its judgment, the Court of Justice considered these standards, which are developed by European Standardisation Organisations upon the request of the Commission, to form part of EU law, given their significant legal effects. As a result, the Court held that the Commission must make practical arrangements for disclosing these standards to the public. The complainant sought access to the Commission’s internal assessment of the Court’s judgment.

The Commission refused access to the documents it identified as falling within the scope of the request, invoking the need to protect legal advice and ongoing court proceedings, as well as its decision-making process. In particular, the Commission argued that its internal assessment is closely linked to several cases still pending before the EU Courts.

Based on an inspection of the documents, the Ombudsman found that they largely contain general information to which the public and the parties to the ongoing court proceedings invoked by the Commission may already have access. While the Ombudsman was not convinced by the Commission’s position that partial access to the requested documents could not have been granted, she found that no further inquiries were justified in this case, given that information regarding how the Commission has implemented the judgment is already in the public domain. The Ombudsman suggested, however, that the Commission reconsider its position on the access request in light of her observations, with a view to granting partial access.