Good morning, everyone.

I am happy to be here in Brussels for this conference.

It is one thing to see the many challenges the world faces. It is another to be responsible — as you are — for writing the first account of all that is happening.

At a time when it feels like everything matters, we need your profession more than ever: to give perspective and context, and to hold those in power to account.

At first glance, ombudsmen and journalists might seem to live in very different worlds. One deals with complaints and mediates disputes with institutions; the other deals with sources and news stories for the public.

Yet we share a common goal: to promote fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Ombudsmen seek transparency, accountability, and citizen-friendliness in public administrations. Just as you often turn complex ideas or policies into clear and relatable language for your readers and listeners, we ask public administrations to explain their actions, act in the public interest, and stay open to scrutiny.

In essence, both professions aim for accountability. The ombudsman works from within the system to make it fairer, while the journalist works from outside to expose its shortfalls and increase transparency.

Both roles are important, though we do our work in different ways. One is based on procedure and persuasion; the other focuses more on communication and raising awareness.

Nevertheless, even when our methods and tools differ, our work often complements each other.

Let me tell you a little about the office I have the privilege to lead.

As European Ombudswoman, I oversee the whole EU administration.

I handle complaints on issues such as access to documents, integrity, procedural fairness, the management of EU grants, and complaints from EU staff.

And I also have the power to start investigations on my own, without waiting for a complaint. This lets me improve EU practices for the benefit of citizens, even if they don’t have direct contact with EU institutions — making my work more proactive and less reactive.

For example, my first own-initiative inquiry is focused on how EU agencies manage “revolving doors” — when officials move from public office to private-sector roles. At first glance, this might seem abstract, but it affects areas from medicine and food safety to cybersecurity and defence. It is important that the public can trust that these agencies are operating at the highest ethics standards.

Other inquiries have looked at Frontex and fundamental rights, the transparency of tobacco lobbying, and how the EU makes its laws — a crucial area for citizens’ trust and engagement.

One of my priorities is exactly to empower citizens. Accountability, transparency and good communication are essential — people must understand and be able to follow and/ or participate in EU processes to feel that they have a stake in democracy.

Trust does not erode because people reject rules — it erodes when they don’t understand them, or worse, when they feel excluded by them.

Now, since this is one of the questions journalists often ask me, let me say it right away: my Office does not have binding powers.

What we do have are soft powers — and they are a real strength. They give us flexibility and agility, allowing us to make suggestions and proposals that reach beyond the immediate complaint or the existing legal framework, as well as to anticipate issues that may arise in the future.

Our success comes from our influence, built on independence, impartiality, and clear, sound reasoning. We are aware of our role as a bridge between citizens and institutions — a bridge that only works if people know it exists and trust that it leads somewhere meaningful.

Another important power of the EO, particularly relevant in the area of access to documents, is the ability to inspect all documents that institutions have, including confidential ones. This ensures that I have a full picture of a certain situation, such as how exactly a decision was taken and whether the correct procedures were followed.

Access to documents is indeed one of the major areas of my office, equally critical for accountability — and for journalism.

You can request documents from EU institutions, and the process should take no more than 60 days. If an institution does not respond, refuses, or redacts without justification, my Office steps in to review the case and, if needed, request the documents be released.

Last year, access requests made up 42% of the inquiries my Office opened, often from journalists investigating issues from pandemic recovery plans to EU border operations. Requests can also cover text messages — which are increasingly used in official business — raising questions about how documents are recorded and preserved for accountability.

Allow me to add that journalists also use our Office to address fairness, for example, whether only Brussels-based reporters receive embargoed material, or access to high-level meetings.

That said, as European Ombudswoman, I am fully aware of the vital role journalism plays in encouraging civic engagement and keeping the EU administration accountable.

Accountability is, of course, a shared effort — but it is hard to imagine real accountability without the active participation of civil society and a free, independent press.

I underline this point, even if it may seem self-evident, because from my European perspective, it is clear that we are living through profoundly challenging times.

The pace and complexity of EU decision-making — driven by the goal of keeping the Union competitive — raises important questions about oversight, public participation, and access to information.

I am sure that you, as journalists, feel this strongly: decisions are moving faster, becoming more complex, and it can be harder to scrutinise policies, track developments, and report accurately.

On top of this, we now have artificial intelligence — with both its benefits and risks. AI can process thousands of documents to support investigative reporting, but it can also cause errors, create uncertainty about sources, or raise intellectual-property concerns.

The challenges we face are like a fast-flowing river — powerful, unpredictable currents moving swiftly in many directions. We must think carefully before we act, but we also need to move with the current, not be swept away by it.

These are anxious times — for citizens, decision-makers, and those of you covering events as they unfold. That makes the work of my Office particularly important: ensuring administrative rules are followed, enabling citizens to participate fully in EU democracy, and maintaining high accountability standards.

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

At the heart of those values lies a deep and enduring commitment to a vibrant democracy, sustained by an active and engaged civil society — and by you, the journalists who inform, investigate, and hold power to account.

So, how can the European Ombudsman best support you in your role?

Broadly speaking, there are two key ways that are especially relevant for your profession.

First, by listening to concerns and, where necessary, amplifying them — making sure issues affecting citizens and society are brought into the spotlight.

Second, by accepting complaints and opening inquiries, ensuring that problems in public administration are examined, and that accountability follows.

The report on the European Commission’s delays in providing access to documents illustrates this point. Many examples came directly from journalists’ requests. While we have not yet succeeded in changing this behaviour at a structural level, I believe we are beginning to see some improvements.

An effective ombudsman office is one that listens, understands, responds — and anticipates. And just as journalists hold institutions accountable through scrutiny and reporting, we do so through investigation and dialogue. Together, these complementary approaches strengthen transparency, participation, and trust in democracy.

In sum, it is more important than ever to have impartial voices that both believe in — and uphold — democracy.

The European Ombudsman is one of those voices. Alongside the executive, legislative, and judicial checks and balances that define a healthy democracy, we add an extra layer of accountability — one that asks whether the system truly works for the benefit of citizens.

Another vital voice is yours.

Journalists keep us informed — and they keep us accountable. Your capacity and your freedom to do so are among the clearest measures of a democracy’s strength.

I don’t need to tell you about the pressures and obstacles you and your colleagues face. But I want to stress the importance of remaining vigilant and safeguarding press freedom. I firmly believe in the right of journalists to scrutinise public administrations — and to do so with access to timely, accurate information.

In my role as European Ombudswoman, I will continue to uphold and defend that right — because when both our professions can work freely and fearlessly, democracy itself grows stronger.