The case concerned a request for public access to ‘model cards’ related to the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation’s (Europol) artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Model cards contain information on the AI tools’ intended use and their evaluations. Europol identified four documents as falling within the scope of the request. It refused access to three documents in their entirety and gave partial access to the remaining document. In doing so, Europol relied on the need to protect the public interest as regards public security.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected 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 is at risk, the Ombudsman found that Europol’s decision to refuse (full) public access was not manifestly wrong. Given that the public interest at stake cannot be superseded by another public interest that is deemed more important, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

The Ombudsman considered, however, that Europol’s explanations provided to the complainant as to why (full) access to these documents had to be refused could have been more specific, and referred to a previous suggestion for improvement she made in this regard. 

 

The complainant asked the European Commission for public access to documents concerning its exchanges with the Hungarian government on judicial independence in the context of the Commission's assessment of Hungary's eligibility for cohesion funds. After consulting with the Hungarian authorities, the Commission refused access to some of the documents, invoking two exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents. More specifically, the Commission argued that disclosure would undermine the purpose of its investigation as regards Hungary’s eligibility for cohesion funds and its decision-making process. The complainant asked the Commission to review its decision (by making a ‘confirmatory application’). When the Commission did not reply within the applicable time limits, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s implicit refusal to grant public access to the requested documents. During the Ombudsman's inquiry, the Commission adopted its confirmatory decision. It maintained its decision to withhold access but invoked an additional exception, arguing that the European Parliament had initiated court proceedings concerning the matter in the meantime, and disclosure could undermine these ongoing proceedings.

The Ombudsman’s inspection showed that the requested documents contain Hungary’s self-assessment, formal questionnaires sent by the Commission to the Hungarian authorities, and the official replies from the relevant Hungarian authorities to those questions. The requested documents thus form the basis of the Commission’s decision against which Parliament initiated court proceedings. They were neither drawn up for the purpose of the specific court proceedings, nor do they contain internal legal positions on contentious issues throughout.

The Ombudsman took the view that the Commission had not sufficiently demonstrated how disclosing the documents could undermine the court proceedings in question. The Ombudsman was also not convinced by the Commission’s argument that disclosure could undermine its investigation. In addition, the Ombudsman stressed the importance of informing the public of the Commission and the Hungarian authorities’ actions to protect the financial interests of the EU and to ensure that the rule of law is respected. Therefore, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s refusal to grant wide public access to the requested documents constituted maladministration and recommended that the Commission reconsider its position on the access request.

In reply, the Commission confirmed its position that disclosure of the requested documents would undermine the serenity of the court proceedings brought by Parliament and its investigation as regards Hungary’s eligibility for cohesion funds. However, the Ombudsman found that the Commission did not provide convincing explanations as to why no wider access could be given to these documents. Therefore, the Ombudsman confirmed her finding of maladministration and closed the case.

The case concerned a request for public access to the reasoned opinion that the European Commission sent to Belgium in the context of an infringement procedure regarding its transposition of the Whistleblower Protection Directive.

The Commission refused access to the document, which forms part of the file for an ongoing infringement procedure. In doing this, the Commission relied on a general presumption of non-disclosure, based on the need to protect the purpose of an ongoing investigation. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

While the Ombudsman considered that adequate protection of whistleblowers is essential, she found, based on the inspection of the document at issue, that the Commission was justified in relying on the general presumption of non-disclosure to refuse access to the document. She therefore closed the case.

The case concerned the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s (Frontex) failure to provide a substantive response to an administrative complaint related to allegations of harassment and irregularities made by a Category 2 Standing Corps officer.

The complainant filed the administrative complaint with Frontex in March 2023. Frontex replied that, contrary to previous information it had provided to the complainant, the latter did not have the right to make such a complaint. Consequently, he would not receive a substantive response. However, in the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, Frontex said it would provide a general substantive response to the complainant by November 2024. Frontex provided this response to the complainant in December 2025 only. The Ombudsman found that the inconsistent information provided to the complainant and the egregious delay in responding to the complaint constitute maladministration. However, the Ombudsman did not find it necessary to make a recommendation, given that Frontex has now provided a substantive response to the complainant.

Additionally, the Ombudsman’s inquiry revealed the absence of an effective complaint and redress mechanism for Category 2 officers, such as in harassment situations at Frontex. The Ombudsman concluded that this is a systemic issue that also constitutes maladministration.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Frontex Management Board introduce an effective complaint and redress mechanism in the upcoming revision of the legal framework for Category 2 officers.

The case concerned a request for public access to a letter of formal notice in an infringement procedure related to successive fixed-term work contracts in the Spanish public sector. The Commission refused access to the letter, arguing that it forms part of an ongoing infringement procedure, for which a general presumption of non-disclosure exists. The Commission found that the complainant had not demonstrated the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the document at issue and confirmed that it forms part of the administrative file in an ongoing infringement procedure. Based on this, the Ombudsman found that the Commission was justified in relying on the general presumption of non-disclosure to refuse access to the letter of formal notice. She also found that it was reasonable for the Commission to consider that the complainant did not put forward sufficient arguments to demonstrate the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure. She therefore closed the case, finding no maladministration.

The complainant asked the European Commission in March 2024 for public access to documents related to its 2023 reassessment of the application of the ‘rule of law procedure’ in Hungary (based on the Conditionality Regulation). The Commission identified four quarterly reports and several exchanges between Hungary and the Commission as falling within the scope of the request but refused access to all documents. In withholding access, it invoked exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure could undermine the purpose of an investigation and its ongoing decision-making process under the Conditionality Regulation.

The complainant asked the Commission to review its position (by making a ‘confirmatory application’) in April 2024. As the Commission failed to reply to the complainant's confirmatory application within the applicable time limit, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in June 2024.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s confirmatory application and asked the Commission to reply as soon as possible. The Commission replied to the complainant in December 2025, that is over 19 months after they submitted the confirmatory application.

As the Commission replied to the complainant’s confirmatory application, the Ombudsman closed this case. However, she unequivocally criticised the significant delay incurred by the Commission in replying to the complainant’s request and reminded the Commission that it should urgently address the issue of delays in its processing of requests for public access to documents.

The case concerned the refusal by the European Parliament to give public access to a document related to instances of thefts and burglaries which occurred within Parliament’s premises in the course of 2020. To refuse access, Parliament relied on one exception set out in the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure of the document would undermine the public interest as regards public security.

Based on the inspection of the document and following a meeting of her inquiry team with representatives of Parliament, the Ombudsman found that Parliament had not demonstrated how disclosure of parts of the document could specifically and actually undermine the interest invoked. She thus made a solution proposal that Parliament consider providing at least partial access to the document.

Parliament accepted the Ombudsman’s solution proposal and gave partial access to the document. The Ombudsman welcomed Parliament’s positive response to her proposal for a solution and closed the inquiry.

The two cases concern Europol’s refusal to grant public access to documents regarding its digital tools for analysing images and videos, text sentiment, open-source information, and recognising faces. The documents at issue are a ‘research project initiation document’, ‘data protection impact assessments’, and related opinions of the Fundamental Rights Officer of Europol. In refusing public access to these documents, Europol referred to several exceptions to public access, including the need to protect the public interest as regards public security. It considered that disclosure of the requested documents would give information to criminals about its technical capabilities, thus undermining the effectiveness of its operations.

Based on an inspection of the requested documents by her inquiry team, the Ombudsman made a solution proposal in case 1192/2024/MIK, asking Europol to give partial access. Europol accepted this proposal and granted partial access to the ‘research project initiation document’. Moreover, in case 841/2025/MIK Europol applied the same approach as proposed by the Ombudsman in the parallel case and granted partial access to several opinions of its Fundamental Rights Officer.

Although Europol gave no access to the data protection impact assessments and redacted information concerning the functionalities of the tools, the Ombudsman considered that meaningful public access in these cases had now been granted. Therefore, the Ombudsman considered that Europol had accepted her solution. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman suggested that, in future cases, Europol should examine in greater depth whether ‘data protection impact assessments’ and other documents concerning similar digital tools contain non-sensitive information that may be disclosed to the public. The Ombudsman will continue monitoring this issue in the context of future complaints.