The case concerned a request for public access to exchanges between the Commission, a US-based organisation and Europol on the issue of child sexual abuse. The complainant submitted his request to the Commission in November 2024.

The Commission first replied in March 2025. It identified 14 documents as falling within the scope of the request, granting partial access to 11 documents and refusing access to three documents in their entirety. In doing so, the Commission argued that disclosure could undermine privacy, the public interest as regards public security and its own decision-making process.

The complainant contested the Commission's decision by making a 'confirmatory application' in April 2025. In the absence of a reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in July 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 documents in question.

The Commission replied to the complainant in March 2026, granting (wider) partial access to all 14 documents. The complainant, in his comments on the Commission’s confirmatory decision, did not challenge the remaining redactions. The Ombudsman therefore considered that the complaint into the Commission’s implicit refusal has been settled by the partial access now granted. That said, the Ombudsman regrets the delay incurred by the Commission in handling the complainant’s access request, which persisted even after she opened her inquiry. The Ombudsman continues to closely monitor the matter of delays based on complaints submitted to her.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents held by the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) concerning its cooperation with authorities of Member States, the UK and Frontex on counter-smuggling activities in the English Channel. Europol identified 197 documents as falling within the scope of the request and refused access to all of them. In refusing access, Europol argued that the disclosure of the documents would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security and its international relations. 

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected samples of the documents at issue and met with Europol representatives. Based on this and considering the wide margin of discretion that EU institutions and agencies enjoy where they consider that public security and international relations are at risk, the Ombudsman found that Europol’s decision to refuse public access was not manifestly wrong.

Given that the public interests at stake cannot be superseded by another public interest that is deemed more important, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding that there was no maladministration by Europol.

The case concerned the time taken by the European Commission to ensure Spain’s compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning Spain’s national rules as regards State liability for breaches of EU law. The complainant was concerned that the Commission was not taking timely and effective actions to ensure Spain’s compliance with the judgment.  

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had generally followed the matter actively from the adoption of the judgment. Although there was a period of approximately one year showing no documented trace of any action taken by the Commission, the time taken to pursue the matter could be partly attributed to the situation in Spain. In addition, the Ombudsman found reasonable the Commission’s position that, when a Member State shows willingness to take action, a dialogue may be the most efficient way forward.

The Ombudsman therefore concluded that, given the steps taken by the Commission so far, including the recent letter of formal notice sent to Spain, and considering the circumstances of the case that explain the timeline of the Commission’s actions, no further inquiries were justified at that point in time and closed the case.

The case concerned a request for public access to a speech of the Deputy Executive Director of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol). Europol identified a briefing note containing the relevant speech as falling within the scope of the complainant’s access request. It granted wide access to the document but redacted a part of the speech concerning organisational proposals and points of discussion related to the future of the agency. In doing so, Europol relied on two exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosing it would undermine the public interest as regards public security and a decision-making process. 

The complainant asked Europol to review its decision (by making a ‘confirmatory application’) but Europol maintained its view that information related to the future of the Agency, on which deliberations are still ongoing, cannot be disclosed.

Based on an inspection of the requested document, the Ombudsman was not convinced by Europol’s explanation that its further disclosure would undermine the public interest as regards public security or the decision-making process surrounding the future of the agency. That said, the Ombudsman noted that a very similar discussion on the future of Europol was organised in the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group (JPSG) on Europol and livestreamed by the European Parliament. In this context, the Ombudsman did not see a useful purpose in continuing her inquiry. She suggested, however, that Europol reconsider its position in light of her observations and the contents of the public discussion in the JPSG, with a view to granting further access to the requested document.