Thank you for the invitation to this conversation. I appreciate that you have taken the time to discuss the work of my Office in what I know is a very busy period. 

I will begin with a brief introduction before taking your questions.

As you know, the European Ombudsman oversees good administration across all European Union institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies. I took up this role just over a year ago with high expectations - both for the office and for the EU administration.

I believe - as I am sure you do - that public administration must be open, transparent, and accountable. 

Over the past year, as many of you have reported, EU institutions have been under intense pressure to respond to a rapidly changing world. A pressure that is not just institutional. Across Europe, citizens, companies, and organisations are also confronting the same uncertainty, trying to find their way in what often feels like uncharted waters.

In many ways, we are experiencing a form of a double anxiety: within institutions, an anxiety about resilience and delivery; and across society, an anxiety about visibility, voice, and inclusion.

It is precisely in moments like these that the quality of public administration matters most. When institutions are under pressure, there can be a temptation to move faster and communicate less. And when citizens feel uncertain or excluded, the demand for transparency and accountability only grows stronger.

This is where the role of the European Ombudsman becomes particularly important: ensuring that even in difficult times, the EU administration remains open, fair, and responsive to the people it serves.

In that sense, we act as true bridge builders between institutions and the citizens.

My office deals with a wide range of complaints — from integrity issues and influence over decisions, to fundamental rights, procedural fairness, and the management of EU grants.

As in previous years, transparency and accountability concerns continue to account for the largest share of our work (38 percent in 2025).

Complainants are individual citizens, civil society organisations, businesses, academics and, regularly, you, in your capacity as journalists.

It is important to clarify that, in our inquiries, we look at issues through the lens of legality, but we can also go beyond it, addressing questions of impartiality, fairness, responsiveness, or empathy — essential elements for maintaining trust in the European project as a whole.

What makes this oversight unique is our focus on good administration in practice.

Through dialogue with the administration, we identify practical solutions and encourage constructive change — often without the need for formal legal action. This approach can resolve issues more quickly and effectively, while also strengthening trust between citizens and institutions.

Our strength lies in our independence, in the quality of our reasoning, and in our ability to make proposals that go beyond the individual case.

Some of our inquiries lead to immediate positive change — access granted to a document or an error related to a grant rectified —; others lead to change further down the line. For example, improvements in how institutions apply revolving door rules have developed gradually, across multiple inquiries.

The work of an Ombudsman is never finished. Standards of good administration must constantly evolve to reflect new realities and rising expectations.

Let me highlight a few issues that have been central to my work over the past year.

First, access to EU documents — many of you rely on this right in your daily work, scrutinising decisions across a wide range of policy areas.

I am very aware of the importance of getting information in a timely manner and that the timeframe foreseen under Regulation 1049 is often not working as it should. For instance, last year, 70% of my access to document inquiries concerning the Commission were related to delays.

While my team and I have had constructive exchanges with the Commission on this matter, access to documents remains a persistent issue.

I am very conscious that handling these requests can be resource-intensive for institutions. But we should never forget that we are dealing with a fundamental right.

What we need now are solutions to clearly identified problems: more clarity and a structural approach. From the legal framework itself to the day-to-day practices of the institutions, and even to the governance models that guide how decisions are recorded and shared.

Getting this right would benefit everyone. It would help citizens exercise their rights more effectively, and it would help institutions move beyond what can sometimes feel like a game of hide and seek.

Second issue - urgent decision making.

Good public administration means being able to respond to unforeseen or urgent situations, while remaining accountable and consistent in decision making.

My recent inquiry concerning the so-called ‘Omnibus I’ found that this balance had not been achieved. I asked that in future the Commission define ‘urgency’ as well as record internal decisions to deviate from its own Better Regulation guidelines.

While it has replied constructively to my findings, the key will be whether future legislative proposals of the Commission are sufficiently inclusive, evidence-based, and transparent - these are absolute requirements whether or not legislation is deemed urgent, and I will continue to monitor this issue.

Third - AI in public administration.

I have three ongoing inquiries relating to artificial intelligence - a sign of the growing use of AI and the questions it raises about oversight and accountability.

One inquiry concerns whether there are effective safeguards in place when external experts use AI to evaluate proposals for EU funding. Another concerns the possible inconsistencies between the AI Act and the guidelines for how it should be implemented for general purpose AI models. And a third concerns the development of EU standards in artificial intelligence.

Such inquiries — and I expect more in the future — help us navigate the use of AI in public administration. They help identify potential risks and areas requiring clarification and may lead to the need to adapt structures and practices to better uphold standards of accountability, transparency, and integrity in public administration.

Finally, I would like to highlight the power of good communication.

Clear, timely and transparent communication is essential for building trust and can often prevent issues from escalating.

Yet, in my work, I still encounter cases where insufficient communication has deepened concerns. A recent inquiry, for example, involves a failure to inform health NGOs in a timely manner about planned budget cuts, despite repeated requests.

As Jürgen Habermas reminded us, democracy does not reside in institutions alone — it lives in communication. It depends on what he described as communicative action: dialogue grounded in reason, where the aim is not to prevail, but to reach mutual understanding.

This requires a strong and open public sphere—where ideas can be exchanged freely, authority can be questioned, and citizens can form informed views. In this respect, journalism plays an essential role. You are not merely observers; you enable and sustain the conversations on which democratic life depends.

As European Ombudswoman, I am aware of the challenges you face —many of which are reflected in the complaints brought before me. They speak directly to the quality of our public sphere, and to the trust that citizens place in both institutions and those who scrutinise them.

Allow me, therefore, to be clear: I will not hesitate in the exercise of my mandate. I will remain consistent, impartial, and solution oriented. And I will continue to uphold — without compromise — the principles of transparency, accountability, and integrity.

These are not abstract ideals. They are the conditions for trust. And trust is the foundation of both good administration and a vibrant democratic discourse.

I am also mindful that results are not always immediate — and that this work is often carried out without great visibility. But I will not step back. Meaningful change is incremental, built step by step — and every effort matters.

I began by saying that I had high expectations for both the office and the EU administration. Let me finish by saying that we opened almost 500 inquiries in 2025 and through them we sought the highest standards from the EU institutions.

In times of uncertainty, citizens rightly expect more: more transparency, more accountability, and more meaningful engagement. My Office will continue to insist on this.

From my perspective, citizens rarely seek conflict — they seek to be heard. It is clear to me that trust does not require outcomes to always match expectations. What matters is that concerns are taken seriously, communicated honestly, and addressed reliably.

This is the foundation of good administration, and it is essential for maintaining confidence in the European Union.

Thank you.