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.

The case concerned how the European Commission dealt with a request to review a decision rejecting a proposal for research funding under the Horizon Europe programme. In particular, the complainant was concerned that the Commission set a character limit on the description of requests for review and did not accept documents provided outside of the dedicated online form.

The Ombudsman found that it was reasonable of the Commission to set character limits. In the context of the inquiry, the Commission also agreed to increase the character limit and to bring it in line with other similar procedures.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration.  

The case concerned a request for public access to three documents, namely a periodic report and two deliverables, related to an EU-funded project concerning a study into the risk of brain cancer from exposure to radiofrequency fields in childhood and adolescence. The Commission gave wide partial access to the periodic report, but no access to the two deliverables, invoking the protection of personal data and of commercial interests. Dissatisfied with the access granted and the significant delay in receiving a final reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the three documents in question. Regarding the periodic report, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission could have given wider access, as some of the information was already in the public domain. As regards the two deliverables, the Ombudsman found that the Commission did not adequately explain how disclosure of the documents would undermine the commercial interests of the parties involved in the project.

The Ombudsman shared her preliminary findings with the Commission.

In reply to the Ombudsman, the Commission granted wide access to the documents. It maintained only redactions of certain personal data and the brand names and models of the mobile phones used for the study, arguing that disclosing the latter would harm the commercial interests of the manufacturers.

The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s positive reply and the wide access granted. She considered the personal data redactions to be reasonable, but noted that the Commission could have better explained the limited redactions in order to protect commercial interests. As for the significant delay incurred by the Commission in dealing with the public access request, this was regrettable and constituted maladministration.