Ladies and Gentlemen,

Your Excellencies,

I would like to begin by thanking the Certified Accountants Association for their invitation to reflect on a crucial topic for the European Ombudsman’s Office, which I believe is also fundamental to our public and economic life: how we build and preserve the credibility of institutions and organisations in an increasingly demanding society.

I must confess that the relevance of this intervention was not immediately obvious to me. After all, the work of the European Ombudsman and the accounting profession may seem to be situated in completely different universes.

But in preparing this reflection, I realised that there are important common features between the two: trust, accountability, integrity and, above all, the need to ensure that rules and processes work as they should – and that those we serve can trust the outcome.

Like accountants, ombudsmen also work on something that is not always seen directly, but underpins everything else.

In your case, you ensure that the figures are reliable, that the processes are followed, that everything is ‘in order’ – which is a remarkable achievement.

In our case, we seek to ensure that the European public administration acts in a fair, transparent, and accountable manner.

If the Ombudsman is the ‘guardian of good administration’ in the EU institutions, the accountant is the guardian of financial integrity and transparency in organisations.

In both cases, it is about ensuring that systems work as they should – and identifying, as early as possible, signs of failures or deficiencies that, if ignored, could have much broader consequences.

It is both reactive and preventive work. And, by nature, discreet… until the day it ceases to be so.

And perhaps it is precisely here that we find one of the key truths about trust in institutions: trust is often built through things we don't see, problems that don't happen, and mistakes that are corrected before they are harmful.

It is about that trust – and, above all, about what we can do to strengthen it in the Europe of citizens – that I would like to talk about to you today.

And I do so, of course, from my institution’s ‘window of observation’.

The European Ombudsman is, in a way, a privileged observatory of how the European institutions affect the daily life of citizens.

And what we see, when we look from this window, is not only rules, procedures, or decisions. We see people.

It is the citizen, with their concrete problems, who is looking for us. Often without knowing the legal framework, without mastering the complexity of European processes, driven only by simple convictions: that they should be treated fairly, that their concerns deserve to be heard, and that they have the right to an answer.

And perhaps it is precisely here that the question of the credibility of the institutions takes on its most concrete dimension. Because, for those on the other side, the institution is not an abstraction. It is the decision you receive, the answer you get, the procedure you face – and ultimately how you are treated.

And it is precisely from this direct contact with people – from what they live, from the difficulties they face, and from the way they feel, in practice, the presence of the European institutions – that I would like to look at the challenges that lie ahead.

Over the past six years, we have experienced major historical events: a pandemic, the return of full-scale war to the European continent, and a progressive weakening of respect for the rules that, for decades, have sought to structure the international order.

At the same time, our planet has been confronted with devastating droughts, forest fires, and floods; the public space has been flooded with disinformation and conspiracy theories; and people and businesses have had to deal with the profound social and economic consequences of major technological transformations – most notably artificial intelligence.

Of course, a world marked by change and instability is not a new thing. Humanity has experienced periods of enormous turbulence throughout its history.

So, what really distinguishes this era?

In my view, it is not change in itself. But rather it is the speed and complexity with which this change is happening today.

This poses new challenges to good governance.

Social and technological development have been accelerating for centuries. But in recent years, we seem to have reached a tipping point: a time when the speed and complexity of change begin to test the limits of traditional ways of governing.

And here lies perhaps one of the great paradoxes of our time: democratic decision-making and good governance systems – designed to be thoughtful, inclusive, and deliberative – are being called upon to respond to a world that is moving ever faster.

We are thus living in a context of increasing complexity, especially at the administrative – or, if you like, bureaucratic – level. Beyond speed, decisions are more technical, processes more interconnected, and the expectations of citizens and organisations higher.

Faced with a scenario of fast change and anxiety, the soundness of public and private institutions increasingly depends on the clarity of the principles that guide them and the quality of the practices they adopt.

And this is where ethics takes on renewed importance.

Because when the world changes faster than the rules can keep up, we can't expect there to always be a norm for every situation.

We need principles that guide decisions when rules are not there yet. We need responsibility when the answer is not obvious. And we need integrity when the right choice isn't necessarily the most convenient.

A lot has been said about rules, mechanisms, and structures in the European Union. All of this is, of course, essential. But in practice, what seems to me to make the most difference is the culture that drives decisions.

The ethical dimension is not an add-on. It is what must be at the origin of the decision.

In a more specialised and interdependent world, the boundary between the public and private sectors has become more permeable. Public policies often rely on collaboration with private entities, and for this relationship to work, a healthy collaborative space is needed, based on clear rules and common values.

Let me reinforce one idea: integrity requirements do not exist only to protect the public interest. They also protect the private interest and are essential for building trusting, stable, and predictable relationships between the two.

They reduce risks and avoid surprises – which, as accountants know, are rarely good when they appear in an audit.

When this framework is sound, everyone benefits from it: institutions become more credible, businesses more resilient, and citizens more confident in the functioning of the system.

Clear rules give solidity to it, but also – and I emphasise again – does conduct. It is from this combination that a true culture of integrity is born.

Because, especially in today's world, the legal framework can hardly anticipate all situations. And it cannot, therefore, replace judgment, responsibility and that ethical sense, which is not always written, but which must guide those who decide.

This is where the principles are revealed. This is also where trust is gained.

When you choose to explain a decision, even when it is not mandatory.

When you anticipate a potential conflict of interest, instead of waiting for it to become a problem.

When consistency is preferred over convenience.

It is this coherence, repeated over time, that underpins the legitimacy of the institutions.

And it is also this coherence that I seek to identify and strengthen through my work –  work that looks not only at what the law says, but also at how the rules translate into decisions and behaviour in practice.

Now, if ethics defines the culture that underpins decisions – a true armour of trust – let me now talk about citizens’ participation in decision-making.

In fact, the European Union is not just an institutional project. It is also a membership project.

And that membership does not automatically come from treaties. It is built when citizens feel they can participate, that they are heard, and that their voice can make a difference.

Participating is not just about voting.

It is to be able to understand how decisions are made. It means having access to information and documents. It is finding accessible processes and credible channels to contribute, question, and be heard.

Transparency is therefore a fundamental value and access to public information cannot be a mere administrative formality. It is a right. It is a condition for informed participation and, ultimately, for trust in decisions.

In turn, it is not enough to open a public consultation or set up a participatory mechanism. Those instruments need to be credible and consistent. And, above all, citizens must be able to realise that their contributions have actually been considered, regardless of the final outcome.

Because participating does not necessarily mean seeing our position prevail. It means knowing that we have been heard, that our arguments have been considered, and that the person who decides is able to explain why they have taken  a certain path.

A significant part of the European Ombudsman's work is precisely to check that these gateways to information and participation actually remain open – and that processes are conducted in a transparent, fair, and appropriate manner.

European identity is largely formed by that continuous interaction between institutions and society.

Therefore, strengthening participation is not just a matter of democratic quality. It is also a condition for strengthening the sense of belonging.

It involves more accessible processes. Clearer language. It is a genuine willingness to listen and consider diverse contributions – even when they are critical or difficult to accommodate.

We know that the European institutions operate today in a context that requires fast and effective decisions. The challenge is to respond to this demand without giving up the characteristics that give legitimacy to the European decision-making process: transparency, evidence, and inclusion.

It's a tension that won't go away. But it can be managed in the light of the fundamental principles and values of the Treaties.

It is also in that balance – between the need to decide and the need to listen – that the ability to preserve integrity and strengthen trust in the institutions and in the European project is at stake.

And it is in this balance between openness, participation, and effectiveness that a new issue arises: artificial intelligence.

If ethics defines the culture that underpins decisions and participation determines who is involved – or can be involved – in those decisions, artificial intelligence presents us with a new dimension of that same trust: how institutions use technologies that are transforming decision-making itself.

The increasing use of automated systems in both the public and private sectors raises new questions. Not only technical, but also legal and ethical questions.

How can we ensure that decisions are understandable?

How can we ensure that they do not reproduce inequalities?

How to maintain responsibility in a context of increasing automation?

Again, the answer is not just technology. It's in the way we frame it.

We need systems that are designed from the outset on the basis of clear principles: respect for fundamental rights, human oversight, and the possibility of scrutiny.

And this requires prepared professionals, vigilant institutions and – perhaps most importantly – a culture that does not shy away from asking difficult questions. Even when the answers are not immediate…or particularly comfortable.

Artificial intelligence therefore does not replace the responsibility of the institutions. Instead, it makes it even more demanding. And it obliges us to ensure that, as the tools change, we do not lose sight of the principles that should guide decisions.

Ladies and gentlemen,

In a context of accelerated change, it can be tempting to seek quick solutions.

But the strength of institutions – public or private – still depends on very concrete factors: clarity of rules, consistency of practices, and accountability in decisions. It also depends on seriousness and honest communication.

It is this ability to act on principles that truly tests institutions – especially when circumstances make choices more demanding.

This is where your role as accountants intersects so directly with that of public institutions.

By ensuring rigour, transparency, and reliability for the companies, organisations and individuals they serve, they are contributing to a more stable and predictable economic environment. And they are also, perhaps less visibly, enhancing the quality of the public space in which we all operate.

In essence, this is a shared responsibility.

A responsibility that is built on a day-to-day basis, often far from the spotlight, but which has very concrete consequences for the way citizens look at institutions, businesses and the European project itself.

Because, in the end, it is in concrete decisions that principles cease to be words and become trust.

Thank you.