Good afternoon,

Thank you for the invitation to speak on this important topic.

As we all know, one of the most reliable measures of a country or region’s democratic health is the extent to which civil society is empowered to actively participate in public life.

The principle of democratic participation lies at the heart of any functioning democracy. It ensures that people have both the space and the means to engage in shaping decisions that affect them.

Indeed, a vibrant civic space is essential—not only to uphold democracy but also to safeguard civil rights.

As European Ombudswoman, I am fully aware of the important role civil society organisations play in fostering this engagement and in holding the EU administration to account—across a wide range of issues, including transparency, fundamental rights, integrity, and environmental protection, to name but a few.

Accountability is—of course—a shared effort. But quite frankly, I cannot imagine real accountability without the active involvement of civil society.

And the reason why I feel the need to say something that might seem obvious—particularly here in Poland—is because from my European vantage point, I see clearly that we are living through challenging times. And often, the scales do not tip in civil society’s favour.

For example, in terms of resources and access to decision makers.

But also taking into account the new geopolitical landscape and the highly transactional world we now suddenly find ourselves in.  

Policies and priorities are being re-shaped at speed, and decision-making processes are becoming increasingly complex, covering new and more specialised areas, often framed as urgent along with arguments that easily require further explanations.

An environment that can not only create an undesirable uncertainty, but also hinder civil society’s ability to contribute meaningfully and hold institutions accountable.

This is precisely where the EO has a key role to play in helping to rebalance the scales.

In practical terms, it means ensuring that there is diversity of expertise feeding into decision-making, that public consultations are open to meaningful participation, and that proactive transparency allows civil society and others to understand—and, where necessary, influence—EU policy-making.

I strongly believe that trust in governance erodes not because people reject rules, but because they do not understand them—or worse, they feel excluded by them.

These are anxious times—for citizens and decision-makers alike.

This makes the work of my office—which is to ensure that administrative rules are followed, that citizens can partake in the democratic life of the EU, and that accountability standards are high —especially important.

Here, I see both an opportunity and a responsibility to further establish the Ombudsman’s office as a reference point for the norms and values that have defined the EU since its foundation.

And of course, central to those values is a deep and ongoing commitment to a vibrant democracy through having a vibrant civil society.

Always operating with full independence and impartiality, strengthened by the soundness of our arguments, and mindful of our important role as a bridge between citizens and institutions—a bridge that can only serve its purpose if people know it exists and trust it will lead them somewhere.

So, how can ombudsman institutions support civil society engagement?

Broadly speaking, I believe it is possible to identify three main ways.

First, by listening and where necessary amplifying concerns; second, by accepting complaints and opening inquiries; and third, by actively consulting civil society in inquiries that are relevant to their areas of expertise.

An effective ombudsman office is one that listens, understands, responds—and anticipates.

That is why our office continuously monitors what civil society and others are saying about their interactions with the EU administration.

Civil society’s input has led to major own-initiative inquiries—for example, on the lack of transparency in EU law making, and on the transparency of the hundreds of expert groups that advise the European Commission on policies.

We have also made proactive suggestions to improve the functioning of the European Citizens Initiative—the EU’s primary participatory democracy tool.

More directly still, many of our inquiries have been the result of complaints from civil society organisations—covering issues such as the protection of fundamental rights, alleged ethics breaches, and access to EU documents.

One ongoing inquiry, for example, is related to whether the Commission sufficiently consulted stakeholders, including environmental organisations, before making urgent amendments to Common Agricultural Policy legislation following farmers’ protests last year. Another examines how the Commission monitors fundamental rights compliance in how EU funds are used by Greece for border management.

We also actively seek the formal input of civil society to our inquiries, drawing on their expertise and on-the-ground insight.

From how EU funds are spent in line with human rights obligations (particularly with regards to persons with disabilities) to the transparency of environmental decision making to whether the EU’s border agency Frontex is complying with fundamental rights obligations in its search and rescue operations.

In closing, I speak not only from theory but from direct experience.

I have seen the benefits of a strong, independent, and vibrant civic space. And I am aware of the harm that can be caused if that space begins to shrink.

That is why I remain committed to amplifying this message wherever I can—and through the work of my office, to upholding the values that allow civil society to thrive: fairness, integrity, and trust.

Thank you