Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here.

Let me begin by thanking the New Economy Forum for the invitation.

This Forum was set up to discuss ‘Ideas to Strengthen the Union’ and in that vein, I would like to use this opportunity to speak to you about something very pertinent to the work of an ombudsman: the right to transparency.

We often think of transparency as a broad policy, a characteristic of good governance, or a legal requirement on the part of our institutions. It is, of course, all of these things, but I would encourage us to also consider it in another way.

A core aspect that separates democracy from other forms of government is that democracy demands the continuous consent of the governed. Consent, however, cannot be given in the dark.

If populations are expected to accept the actions of their public institutions, citizens must have a right to see, understand, and evaluate exactly what those institutions are doing.

Transparency must never be considered a courtesy to citizens. On the contrary, it is the receipt they are owed for their trust in government and in public institutions. In other words, transparency is a fundamental right.

I want to stress this point because I fear it is increasingly becoming overlooked.

We live in a moment of compounding crises – geopolitical, economic, and institutional – and that pressure has a predictable effect: it leads governments and administrations to accelerate decision-making, to centralise authority, and to prioritise speed over process. That instinct is understandable. But it comes at a cost.

At the very same moment that institutions feel the pull toward faster and more concentrated power, citizens are moving in precisely the opposite direction. They are demanding greater visibility into how decisions are made. They want to understand who is at the table, what evidence is being considered, and whose interests are being served. They expect not merely to be governed, but to be included.

The result of these two forces pulling apart is what I would call a legitimacy gap. And it is a gap that, if left unaddressed, does not simply undermine individual decisions – it erodes the foundation of trust upon which democratic institutions depend.

As European Ombudswoman, I can tell you that nearly forty percent of all our inquiries in 2025 concerned transparency issues. The figure was similar in 2024.

In addition, some of the cases we deal with, particularly when it comes to access to documents, suggest that the modus operandi inside parts of the EU administration has taken on the shape of ‘disclosure management’ rather than that of guaranteeing a fundamental right.

In my view, there are some particularly worrying trends that are currently threatening transparency in public administration. Allow me to share them with you, after which I will dare to suggest what can be done to ensure greater openness – ‘ideas to strengthen our Union’.

First, the delays.

People are too often not getting information they request when they need it.

This can happen because institutions are not quickly and proactively sharing information that is of public interest or because they are dragging their feet in responding to requests for documents or information.

But it can also happen for a reason that is less visible and, in some ways, more troubling: the system itself has become extraordinary complex to navigate, and institutions have learned to use that complexity as cover for caution.

Access to documents requests are today frequently met with a process that is, by design or by habit, slow. Institutions treat each request as a potential liability rather than an opportunity to fulfil a right. They err on the side of withholding. They consult, they deliberate, they redact – and in doing so, they run out the clock.

The numbers bear this out. When my Office examined how long it takes the European Commission to handle access to document requests, we found that it frequently exceeds legal deadlines.

This is troublesome and unjustifiable. It risks making any documents that are eventually obtained obsolete – for journalists, for academics, and for the general public wanting to have their say in decision making.

Second, the improper use of exceptions.

The EU’s access to documents regulation does provide for legitimate exceptions – protecting privacy, commercial interests, public security, or international relations. These exist for good reason. But they must be applied strictly, on the basis of specific, substantiated reasons and demonstrable harm. An institution cannot simply invoke public security. It must explain precisely how disclosure would undermine it.

In practice, this is not always what happens.

In a recent case, we found maladministration in how the Commission handled a request for a risk assessment report by social media firm X concerning its compliance with the Digital Services Act. Rather than examining the report to determine what could be disclosed, the Commission argued that exceptions could be presumed to apply – citing X’s commercial interests and an ongoing Commission’s investigation into X’s activities – without conducting any actual analysis. We found this unreasonable and contrary to the applicable rules.

This is not an isolated problem. In a systemic own-initiative inquiry into legislative documents, we found that both the Commission and the Council of the EU applied exceptions far too broadly. Arguments used to justify non-disclosure were vague, unsubstantiated, or based on reasons already put forward to and rejected by the European Court of Justice – such as the claim that disclosure would invite external pressure or public misinterpretation.

Let me be direct: transparency must be the default. Timely access to legislative documents is essential for citizens to participate meaningfully in decision-making. Exceptions should be exactly that – exceptional – and always grounded in specific, tangible facts.

Third, technology and new ways of working.

Public officials today communicate very differently from how they did ten or twenty years ago. Text messages, instant messaging apps, and informal digital exchanges have become a routine part of policy work. That brings efficiency gains – but also significant risks for accountability.

Important information shared through these channels can be accidentally deleted, never registered, or simply forgotten. The result is a growing grey zone: consequential exchanges that fall outside the need to register and retain documents and escape public scrutiny.

It is vital that the EU administration’s increasing reliance on modern communication tools is reflected in its document management rules and practices. Without that, we risk institutions becoming too informal – creating new spaces where decisions are shaped but no trace is left behind.

My Office has already produced practical recommendations to help guide the administration on this issue. We also have an ongoing inquiry aimed at establishing clearer principles. Chief among them is this: any document subject to an access request – including an instant message – must be immediately retained, regardless of whether the institution believes access will ultimately be granted.

This is simply good administrative practice. It allows an independent body such as the European Ombudsman to assess whether the right decision was made, and it reassures the public that nothing is being deliberately hidden.

Transparency, after all, is not only about what is disclosed. It is also about what is kept.

So what are the answers?

If these are the broad challenges facing transparency in the EU administration, how do we respond? How do we ensure greater openness and genuine respect for citizens’ rights?

I believe there are three wide-ranging solutions.

First, the EU administration must invest in a culture of proactive transparency. Nor only in words or public statements but in deeds.

EU policymaking has been expanding in both breadth and depth. It is increasingly touching areas that people care deeply about and in which they want to be heard. As a result, demand for information will only grow – and access to documents requests will grow with it.

This is natural. A strong democracy depends on legitimacy, and legitimacy depends on openness.

The EU institutions should therefore provide citizens with as much information as they can, as early as they can. Citizens should not be left to guess what documents may or may not exist. If the EU wants to move faster on the issues that matter, it must bring citizens along – and that means giving them the information they need to engage meaningfully.

This requires a shift in mindset. Too often, institutions treat transparency as a hindrance to action. It is no such thing – not in a democracy. On the contrary, transparency is what enables action. It is what ensures that law-making is done not only for citizens, but with them.

Second, resources and good governance.

Transparency cannot be treated as an afterthought when it comes to funding and staffing decisions. The EU administration must ensure it has adequate financial and human resources dedicated to meeting its transparency obligations.

But resources alone are not enough. Institutions must also put in place strong governance models that promote openness from the outset – clearly assigning responsibilities, and streamlining how documents are retained, registered, and published.

Equally important is usability. What is published must be accessible in the practical sense: easy to find, easy to open, and easy to understand. Engaging with public information should not require specialised technical knowledge. If it does, transparency becomes the privilege of experts rather than a right exercised by all.

Finally, it is time to revise Regulation 1049/2001.

I recognise this may be controversial – but I believe it must be said and openly debated.

What we have is a law that is a quarter-of-a-century old. The world it was designed for no longer exists. When it was adopted in 2001, how many text messages were public officials sending? The data environment has changed beyond recognition – and that is before we even consider the broader ways in which EU policymaking itself has evolved.

The law is simply not functioning as originally foreseen. Exceptions are being interpreted in ways that increasingly undermine openness. The burden placed on citizens to obtain documents they are entitled to is unreasonable. People find themselves having to cite past court judgments, Ombudsman inquiries, and internal institutional guidelines just to make their case.

That is not in the spirit of the law, and it does not support the fundamental right to transparency.

I am aware that some are reluctant to reopen this legislation, fearing that a revised regulation could end up offering citizens less protection than the current one. These are not unreasonable concerns. But they underestimate the risks of doing nothing.

To borrow a phrase frequently attributed to John F. Kennedy: “There are risks and costs to action, but they are far less than the long-range risks of comfortable inaction.”

Our current system lacks clarity.

And that lack of clarity corrodes trust.

What we are left with is, in effect, institutional inertia dressed up as risk management.

We need clearer, more comprehensive, and more modern rules – rules adapted to today’s technology and today’s European Union, that enshrine proactive transparency and strong governance as the norm rather than the exception.

We should not be afraid of opening a legislative debate – one that places the citizen and the protection of their rights at its very centre. Just as institutions should not fear transparency, those of us who campaign for greater openness should never be afraid to put our trust in democracy.

Let us welcome the opportunity to build the transparency framework that citizens deserve.

Thank you.

I look forward to your questions and to the discussion.