The case concerned the European Commission´s handling of an infringement complaint regarding Czechia´s decision to merge its Railways Authority with the Competition Authority. The main concern was that the merger may have infringed EU law and that Czechia may have failed to ensure independent and effective supervision of the rail sector.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons to the complainant for its finding that there was no breach of EU law by Czechia. Having examined the Commission’s explanations provided during the inquiry, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had investigated the matter diligently and that its decision to close the case had been based on solid grounds.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration as regards the Commission’s assessment of the infringement complaint. Given that, in the course of the inquiry, the Commission provided a detailed statement of reasons, this aspect of the case was settled. The Ombudsman suggested to the Commission to always provide complainants with an adequate statement of reasons when intending to close an infringement case.

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 their infringement complaint, the complainant argued, in essence, that the said legislative 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.

While the Commission opened a new pre-infringement dialogue (formerly known as EU Pilot dialogue) with Spain following the opening of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission had not finalised its assessment of the infringement complaint when the Ombudsman was closing this case. Nor had it provided a reasonable justification for the time taken. As such, the Ombudsman confirmed her finding of maladministration. The Ombudsman will continue to monitor the Commission’s record-keeping in relation to pre-infringement dialogues as well as the way it communicates with complainants when closing those dialogues.

The case concerned a request for public access to a document related to the European Commission’s decision to designate a mineral extraction project located in Serbia as a ‘Strategic Project’ under the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA). Specifically, the complainant sought access to the relevant approval of this decision by the non-EU country concerned. The complainant had submitted his request to the European Commission in July 2025.

The Commission first replied in August 2025. It identified one document as falling within the scope of the access request, to which it refused to give public access in its entirety. In doing so, the Commission argued that disclosure could undermine the EU’s international relations with the country where the project is located.

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

The Commission replied to the complainant in May 2026, granting wide partial access to the document at issue, redacting only limited personal data, which the complainant did not challenge. 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 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.