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 a request for public access to meeting minutes of the Management Board of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol). Europol identified two documents as falling within the scope of the request and granted partial access. In doing so, it invoked six exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that full disclosure could undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security and international relations, the privacy and integrity of the individual, legal advice, the purpose of audits, and Europol’s ongoing and closed decision-making processes.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry and her inquiry team inspected the documents in question. Following this inspection, the Ombudsman was not convinced by the application of the exceptions to public access as invoked by Europol. The Ombudsman therefore made a proposal for a solution, asking Europol to reconsider its position on the request with a view to granting wider access and to provide further reasoning for any remaining redactions.

In reply, Europol committed to increasing the level of detail in the publicly available summaries of the outcome of the meetings of its Management Board and shared with the Ombudsman the summary of the Management Board meeting of 25-26 June 2025, which follows Europol’s new approach. However, Europol did not grant wider access to the detailed meeting minutes at issue, as it considered that a general presumption of non-disclosure would apply to them to protect the confidentiality of the discussions. 

The Ombudsman welcomed the greater level of proactive transparency when it comes to the summaries of Management Board meetings that Europol publishes. Having said that, the Ombudsman regretted that Europol did not grant wider access to the meeting minutes at issue nor provide reasoning as to why further access could not be granted in reply to her solution proposal. Instead, Europol applied a general presumption of non-disclosure, with which the Ombudsman disagreed. While the Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries are justified in this case, she recalled that Europol should provide applicants for public access with sufficiently detailed reasoning, allowing them to understand why (full) access cannot be granted. She also asked that Europol continue to conduct an individual assessment of the detailed meeting minutes of its Management Board in reply to future requests for public access under Regulation 1049/2001.

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.