The complainant sought public access to a grant agreement for a project that was funded under the Horizon Europe research and innovation funding programme. The European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA) refused access to the grant agreement in its entirety. In doing so, HaDEA invoked exceptions under the EU legislation on access to documents, arguing that full disclosure could undermine the protection of personal data and the commercial interests of the consortium that is implementing the project.

The complainant asked HaDEA to review its decision (by making a ‘confirmatory application’). In reply, HaDEA granted wide partial access to the grant agreement, but maintained its view that full disclosure would undermine the protection of personal data and commercial interests.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry, and her inquiry team inspected the grant agreement at issue. The inspection showed that, at the time of the confirmatory decision, the redactions of commercially sensitive information and of personal data were reasonable. The Ombudsman also noted that the ‘participant information codes’ (PICs) which identify beneficiaries of EU funds and which are publicly available should not have been redacted. However, as these PICs can be easily accessed on the European Commission’s ‘Funding & Tender portal’ website, the Ombudsman closed the case finding that there was no maladministration. She trusts that, in future, the PICs will no longer be redacted in similar public access requests. 

The complainant applied to the European Innovation Council for a grant dedicated to support start-ups and small and medium enterprises that introduce innovative products or services. Its proposal was not successful. It contested this outcome arguing, among other things, that the experts who had been tasked with reviewing its proposal delegated their evaluation to third-party artificial intelligence (AI).

To examine the complainant’s claims, the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA) reached out to the relevant experts. Some acknowledged using AI during the review process but for ancillary tasks only. After further investigation, EISMEA explained in detail why the experts’ use of AI did not adversely affect the outcome of the complainant’s application.

While the Ombudsman found insufficient grounds to pursue the specific case - namely, the complainant’s concerns regarding the substantive evaluation of its proposal - she found it important to inquire into the rules governing the use of third-party AI by experts who advise the European Commission, EISMEA and other executive agencies in the context of similar funding programmes. The Ombudsman sought information in this regard from the Commission, which is generally responsible for supervising such programmes and adopting the relevant rules.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission has recently specified that experts can use third-party AI for ancillary tasks only and must document their use of AI. This constitutes an improvement. At the same time, the Ombudsman held that it is not optimal to ask for this documentation to be provided to the relevant EU bodies only after a complaint is brought regarding the experts’ use of AI. The Ombudsman suggested that the Commission explore how its experts could document their use of AI and proactively provide this information to the Commission to anticipate potential questions and complaints.

The case concerned the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to Papua New Guinea to reject the complainant’s tender as abnormally low. The complainant argued that the Delegation failed to ask for specific clarifications, to reason its decision and based its rejection on elements unrelated to the price quoted in the tender.

The Ombudsman found that the Delegation should have been more specific when requesting clarifications from the complainant on the price and should have established a clear link between the price and all the elements taken into consideration in its assessment. The Delegation also failed to sufficiently substantiate its decision to reject the tender as abnormally low, in breach of the duty to state reasons. These shortcomings amount to maladministration.

While the Commission provided additional clarifications during the inquiry, the Ombudsman found that these clarifications did not sufficiently address the shortcomings identified.

The Ombudsman considered that it would not be appropriate to make a corresponding recommendation in this case as the contract has been awarded. She nevertheless made three suggestions aimed at preventing such problems occurring in future similar cases.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents related to the expenses of a university in the context of an EU-funded project. The complainant had submitted his request to the European Commission in July 2025.

The Commission first replied in September 2025. It identified ten documents as falling within the scope of the access request, to which it refused to give public access in their entirety. In doing so, the Commission argued that disclosure could undermine the commercial interests of the university concerned.

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

The Commission replied to the complainant in May 2026, granting wide partial access to the documents at issue. 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 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 concerned the decision by the European Research Executive Agency (REA) not to award a ‘seal of excellence’ to a proposal for EU funding under a 2023 call for proposals for the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (MSCA-PF), which is part of the EU’s Horizon Europe programme. REA had refused to award the seal of excellence to the proposal because the applicant was based in the United Kingdom.

The Ombudsman found that REA had provided a reasonable explanation for its decision, and acted in line with the applicable rules. As such, she closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. However, she made a suggestion for improvement to REA that it provide to the complainant, and to other UK-based applicants in the same situation, an explanatory note and/or issue a public statement which clarifies the specific situation of UK-based applicants in the 2023 MSCA-PF calls for proposals, in particular in relation to the seal of excellence.

The case concerned how the European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA) followed-up on the findings of an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into an entity that participated in two EU-funded projects under the Horizon 2020 programme.

Based on findings of irregularities by OLAF, HaDEA informed the complainant of its intention to terminate its participation in the projects, recover costs deemed ineligible and register it in the European Commission’s Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES), which is a database of “unreliable” persons and entities that have applied for EU funds or concluded legal commitments with EU bodies. Among other things, the complainant claimed that HaDEA did not give it an opportunity to express its views before registering it in EDES.

The Ombudsman found that the decision to register the complainant in EDES did not necessarily affect its legal situation and that, in practice, the complainant was given the opportunity to present its views. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration.

The Ombudsman nonetheless made a suggestion for improvement that HaDEA, when it informs an entity of findings against it, also informs the entity concerned if such findings may result in its registration in EDES.