Sittings · Document

Draft report (2025/2153(DEC)) 2026-01-28

Discharge 2024: General budget of the EU - European Ombudsman

Committee on Budgetary Control

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX

Amendment 1

Caterina Chinnici

Motion for a resolution

Recital A

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
A. whereas in the context of the discharge procedure, the discharge authority wishes to stress the particular importance of further strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the Union institutions by improving transparency and accountability, and by implementing the concept of performance-based budgeting and good governance of human resources;A. whereas in the context of the discharge procedure, the discharge authority wishes to stress the particular importance of further strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the Union institutions by improving transparency and accountability, and by implementing the concept of performance-based budgeting, ensuring sound, efficient and results-oriented financial management and good governance of human resources;

Or. en

Amendment 2

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital D a (new)

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
D a. whereas maintaining the highest standards of institutional independence and the avoidance of any perception of favouritism in senior appointments are essential to safeguard public trust in the Ombudsman’s role as the Union’s watchdog of good administration;

Or. en

Amendment 3

Caterina Chinnici

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
5. Notes that the budget monitoring efforts during the financial year 2024 resulted in a budget implementation rate of 97,55 %, representing an increase of 2,16 % compared to 2023; notes that this rate includes appropriations carried over from 2024 to 2025; notes that the current year payment appropriations execution rate was 97,08 %, representing a decrease of 0,50 % compared to 2023; notes an increase of 29,60 % of the appropriations carried-over (C8 credits), i.e. from EUR 304 550 in 2023 to EUR 394 667 in 2024; notes an improvement in the execution rate of the automatic carry-overs of appropriations from the previous year, which in 2024 was 76,59 % compared to 73,27 % in 2023;5. Notes that the budget monitoring efforts during the financial year 2024 resulted in a budget implementation rate of 97,55 %, representing an increase of 2,16 % compared to 2023; notes that this rate includes appropriations carried over from 2024 to 2025; notes that the current year payment appropriations execution rate was 97,08 %, representing a decrease of 0,50 % compared to 2023; notes an increase of 29,60 % of the appropriations carried-over (C8 credits), i.e. from EUR 304 550 in 2023 to EUR 394 667 in 2024; notes an improvement in the execution rate of the automatic carry-overs of appropriations from the previous year, which in 2024 was 76,59 % compared to 73,27 % in 2023; notes, however, that this rate remained low compared to 2022 (92,59 %), and reiterates its call on the Ombudsman to increase efforts to improve this rate;

Or. en

Amendment 4

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
7. Notes with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s Annual Activity Report for 2024 (the ‘Annual report ’) that all payments were made within the regulatory deadline of 30 days in 2024; notes further that the average time for payment of invoices was 13,20 days, an improvement from 2023 (13,50 days); notes with regard to the Ombudsman’s migration to a new financial and accounting system (SUMMA), that the Ombudsman is asked to pay EUR 200 000 for access rights thereto, the same amount that other, much bigger Union institutions, are asked to pay; notes that this amount is double the Ombudsman’s budget for this type of services; invites the Commission to find a solution allowing the Ombudsman to have access to SUMMA for a price that is proportionate to the size of the Ombudsman;7. Notes with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s Annual Activity Report for 2024 (the ‘Annual report ’) that all payments were made within the regulatory deadline of 30 days in 2024; notes further that the average time for payment of invoices was 13,20 days, an improvement from 2023 (13,50 days); notes with regard to the Ombudsman’s migration to a new financial and accounting system (SUMMA), that the Ombudsman is asked to pay EUR 200 000 for access rights thereto, the same amount that other, much bigger Union institutions, are asked to pay; notes that this amount is double the Ombudsman’s budget for this type of services; invites the Commission to find a solution allowing the Ombudsman to have access to SUMMA for a price that is proportionate to the size of the Ombudsman; calls for the establishment of a transparent, objective and size-adjusted cost model for access to shared corporate financial systems, so that small institutions are not disproportionately burdened and can comply with financial management obligations without crowding out operational resources;

Or. en

Amendment 5

Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Olivier Chastel, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
7. Notes with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s Annual Activity Report for 2024 (the ‘Annual report ’) that all payments were made within the regulatory deadline of 30 days in 2024; notes further that the average time for payment of invoices was 13,20 days, an improvement from 2023 (13,50 days); notes with regard to the Ombudsman’s migration to a new financial and accounting system (SUMMA), that the Ombudsman is asked to pay EUR 200 000 for access rights thereto, the same amount that other, much bigger Union institutions, are asked to pay; notes that this amount is double the Ombudsman’s budget for this type of services; invites the Commission to find a solution allowing the Ombudsman to have access to SUMMA for a price that is proportionate to the size of the Ombudsman;7. Notes with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s Annual Activity Report for 2024 (the ‘Annual report ’) that all payments were made within the regulatory deadline of 30 days in 2024; notes further that the average time for payment of invoices was 13,20 days, an improvement from 2023 (13,50 days); notes with regard to the Ombudsman’s migration to a new financial and accounting system (SUMMA), that the Ombudsman is asked to pay EUR 200 000 for access rights thereto, the same amount that other, much bigger Union institutions, are asked to pay; notes that this amount is double the Ombudsman’s budget for this type of services; invites the Commission to find a solution allowing the Ombudsman to have access to SUMMA for a price that is proportionate to the size of the Ombudsman; stresses that mandatory inter-institutional tools should follow a proportionality principle where fees are scaled according to the institution's budget and number of users to prevent the depletion of resources intended for the institution’s core mandate;

Or. en

Amendment 6

Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
7. Notes with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s Annual Activity Report for 2024 (the ‘Annual report ’) that all payments were made within the regulatory deadline of 30 days in 2024; notes further that the average time for payment of invoices was 13,20 days, an improvement from 2023 (13,50 days); notes with regard to the Ombudsman’s migration to a new financial and accounting system (SUMMA), that the Ombudsman is asked to pay EUR 200 000 for access rights thereto, the same amount that other, much bigger Union institutions, are asked to pay; notes that this amount is double the Ombudsman’s budget for this type of services; invites the Commission to find a solution allowing the Ombudsman to have access to SUMMA for a price that is proportionate to the size of the Ombudsman;7. Notes with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s Annual Activity Report for 2024 (the ‘Annual report ’) that all payments were made within the regulatory deadline of 30 days in 2024; notes further that the average time for payment of invoices was 13,20 days, an improvement from 2023 (13,50 days); notes with regard to the Ombudsman’s migration to a new financial and accounting system (SUMMA), that the Ombudsman is asked to pay EUR 200 000 for access rights thereto, the same amount that other, much bigger Union institutions, are asked to pay; notes that this amount is double the Ombudsman’s budget for this type of services; invites the Commission to find a solution allowing the Ombudsman to have access to SUMMA for a price that is proportionate to the size of the Ombudsman and thus ensuring that small institutions are not disproportionately burdened;

Or. en

Amendment 7

Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
8. Notes that impact of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine continued to create budgetary pressure for the Ombudsman in 2024; notes that the Ombudsman was most affected by the increase in energy costs; notes in this context that, in order to align it with the actual costs, the lump sum paid by the Ombudsman to Parliament for rental charges had to be recalculated; notes that, as a result, the Ombudsman’s actual energy expenditure in 2024 increased by 75 %, rising from EUR 168 900 in 2023 to EUR 295 400 in 2024; notes from the Questionnaire the Ombudsman’s view that the cumulative effect of the inflationary pressure and the limitation of the non-salary related expenditure to maximum 2 % compared to the previous year affect the long-term sustainability of the Ombudsman’s budget; acknowledges the need of all EU institutions to improve their budget management by also taking into account price volatility, especially in the energy sector, when concluding contracts with service providers;8. Notes that impact of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the cumulative impact of inflation, energy price volatility and rigid ceilings on non-salary expenditure create structural budgetary pressure for the European Ombudsman in 2024; stresses that such pressure, if not adequately addressed, risks undermining the cost-efficiency, predictability and sustainability of the institution’s operations; notes in this context that, in order to align it with the actual costs, the lump sum paid by the Ombudsman to Parliament for rental charges had to be recalculated; notes that, as a result, the Ombudsman’s actual energy expenditure in 2024 increased by 75 %, rising from EUR 168 900 in 2023 to EUR 295 400 in 2024; notes from the Questionnaire the Ombudsman’s view that the cumulative effect of the inflationary pressure and the limitation of the non-salary related expenditure to maximum 2 % compared to the previous year affect the long-term sustainability of the Ombudsman’s budget; acknowledges the need of all EU institutions to improve their budget management by also taking into account price volatility, especially in the energy sector, when concluding contracts with service providers; stresses that budgetary discipline must be reconciled with realistic cost assessments in order to safeguard taxpayers’ money while maintaining operational continuity;

Or. en

Amendment 8

Caterina Chinnici

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
8. Notes that impact of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine continued to create budgetary pressure for the Ombudsman in 2024; notes that the Ombudsman was most affected by the increase in energy costs; notes in this context that, in order to align it with the actual costs, the lump sum paid by the Ombudsman to Parliament for rental charges had to be recalculated; notes that, as a result, the Ombudsman’s actual energy expenditure in 2024 increased by 75 %, rising from EUR 168 900 in 2023 to EUR 295 400 in 2024; notes from the Questionnaire the Ombudsman’s view that the cumulative effect of the inflationary pressure and the limitation of the non-salary related expenditure to maximum 2 % compared to the previous year affect the long-term sustainability of the Ombudsman’s budget; acknowledges the need of all EU institutions to improve their budget management by also taking into account price volatility, especially in the energy sector, when concluding contracts with service providers;8. Notes that impact of the illegal Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine continued to create budgetary pressure for the Ombudsman in 2024; notes that the Ombudsman was most affected by the increase in energy costs; notes in this context that, in order to align it with the actual costs, the lump sum paid by the Ombudsman to Parliament for rental charges had to be recalculated; notes that, as a result, the Ombudsman’s actual energy expenditure in 2024 increased by 75 %, rising from EUR 168 900 in 2023 to EUR 295 400 in 2024; notes from the Questionnaire the Ombudsman’s view that the cumulative effect of the inflationary pressure and the limitation of the non-salary related expenditure to maximum 2 % compared to the previous year affect the long-term sustainability of the Ombudsman’s budget; acknowledges the need of all EU institutions to improve their budget management by also taking into account price volatility, especially in the energy sector, when concluding contracts with service providers;

Or. en

Amendment 9

Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Olivier Chastel, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
9. Notes that the budget for staff missions was EUR 120 000 in 2024 (same amount as for 2023); notes nevertheless, that during 2024 a reinforcement of the budget article for missions of +38,60% was carried out by means of internal transfer(s); notes the Ombudsman’s explanation, whereby that reinforcement was necessary due to inflation and an increase in accommodation costs, an increase in the number of necessary missions of the Ombudsman and budgetary estimations based on the ones of previous years during which travel was limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic; notes that the initial missions budget for the Ombudsman remained the same in 2023 as in the previous years (2022 and 2023), i.e. EUR 35 000; notes that, after reinforcement of that budget via internal transfer(s), the expenses actually incurred with the her missions were in total EUR 41 326 in 20243 ;9. Notes that the budget for staff missions was EUR 120 000 in 2024 (same amount as for 2023); notes nevertheless, that during 2024 a reinforcement of the budget article for missions of +38,60% was carried out by means of internal transfer(s); notes the Ombudsman’s explanation, whereby that reinforcement was necessary due to inflation and an increase in accommodation costs, an increase in the number of necessary missions of the Ombudsman and budgetary estimations based on the ones of previous years during which travel was limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic; notes that the initial missions budget for the Ombudsman remained the same in 2023 as in the previous years (2022 and 2023), i.e. EUR 35 000; notes that, after reinforcement of that budget via internal transfer(s), the expenses actually incurred with the her missions were in total EUR 41 326 in 20243 ; calls for more realistic initial budgetary forecasting for travel to minimize reliance on large mid-year transfers and ensure stable financial planning;
__________________________________
3 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/declarations-and-transparency/en/196382 and https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/declarations-and-transparency/en/198831.3 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/declarations-and-transparency/en/196382 and https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/declarations-and-transparency/en/198831.

Or. en

Amendment 10

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
12. Commends the Ombudsman for having reduced the time needed to process files at different levels of the procedure, such as the average time for dealing with a complaint (from 39 days in 2023 to 36 days in 2024) and for dealing with a complaint within the mandate (from 91 days in 2023 to 86 days in 2024); notes nevertheless a significant increase in the average time taken to close cases in the area of public access to documents from 42 days in 2023 to 85 working days in 2024; notes that the Ombudsman surpassed its target (100 %) for the rate of clearance (i.e. cases closed compared to new cases registered during the year); regrets however that the average time (168 days) for dealing with an inquiry remained high in 2024 (up from 165 days in 2023), which is well above the target set of 150 days; notes in this context with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s report to Parliament on the follow-up to the discharge for the financial year 2023 (the ’Follow-up report’) that one of the newly elected Ombudsman’s key strategic objectives is to reinforce cooperation and dialogue with the Union institutions, bodies and agencies, with a view to ultimately reducing the time needed to process inquiries;12. Commends the Ombudsman for having reduced the time needed to process files at different levels of the procedure, such as the average time for dealing with a complaint (from 39 days in 2023 to 36 days in 2024) and for dealing with a complaint within the mandate (from 91 days in 2023 to 86 days in 2024); notes nevertheless a significant increase in the average time taken to close cases in the area of public access to documents from 42 days in 2023 to 85 working days in 2024; notes that the Ombudsman surpassed its target (100 %) for the rate of clearance (i.e. cases closed compared to new cases registered during the year); regrets however that the average time (168 days) for dealing with an inquiry remained high in 2024 (up from 165 days in 2023), which is well above the target set of 150 days; notes in this context with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s report to Parliament on the follow-up to the discharge for the financial year 2023 (the ’Follow-up report’) that one of the newly elected Ombudsman’s key strategic objectives is to reinforce cooperation and dialogue with the Union institutions, bodies and agencies, with a view to ultimately reducing the time needed to process inquiries; recommends that the Ombudsman further refine the key performance indicators related to case-handling duration by better reflecting the varying complexity of cases, in order to ensure a more realistic, meaningful and efficiency-oriented performance assessment;

Or. en

Amendment 11

Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Olivier Chastel, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
12. Commends the Ombudsman for having reduced the time needed to process files at different levels of the procedure, such as the average time for dealing with a complaint (from 39 days in 2023 to 36 days in 2024) and for dealing with a complaint within the mandate (from 91 days in 2023 to 86 days in 2024); notes nevertheless a significant increase in the average time taken to close cases in the area of public access to documents from 42 days in 2023 to 85 working days in 2024; notes that the Ombudsman surpassed its target (100 %) for the rate of clearance (i.e. cases closed compared to new cases registered during the year); regrets however that the average time (168 days) for dealing with an inquiry remained high in 2024 (up from 165 days in 2023), which is well above the target set of 150 days; notes in this context with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s report to Parliament on the follow-up to the discharge for the financial year 2023 (the ’Follow-up report’) that one of the newly elected Ombudsman’s key strategic objectives is to reinforce cooperation and dialogue with the Union institutions, bodies and agencies, with a view to ultimately reducing the time needed to process inquiries;12. Commends the Ombudsman for having reduced the time needed to process files at different levels of the procedure, such as the average time for dealing with a complaint (from 39 days in 2023 to 36 days in 2024) and for dealing with a complaint within the mandate (from 91 days in 2023 to 86 days in 2024); notes nevertheless a significant increase in the average time taken to close cases in the area of public access to documents from 42 days in 2023 to 85 working days in 2024; notes that the Ombudsman surpassed its target (100 %) for the rate of clearance (i.e. cases closed compared to new cases registered during the year); regrets however that the average time (168 days) for dealing with an inquiry remained high in 2024 (up from 165 days in 2023), which is well above the target set of 150 days; calls for a plan to address these delays; suggests redirecting the 65% savings achieved through AI translation to reinforce inquiry teams, particularly for public access cases; notes in this context with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s report to Parliament on the follow-up to the discharge for the financial year 2023 (the ’Follow-up report’) that one of the newly elected Ombudsman’s key strategic objectives is to reinforce cooperation and dialogue with the Union institutions, bodies and agencies, with a view to ultimately reducing the time needed to process inquiries;

Or. en

Amendment 12

Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza, Dick Erixon, Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
12. Commends the Ombudsman for having reduced the time needed to process files at different levels of the procedure, such as the average time for dealing with a complaint (from 39 days in 2023 to 36 days in 2024) and for dealing with a complaint within the mandate (from 91 days in 2023 to 86 days in 2024); notes nevertheless a significant increase in the average time taken to close cases in the area of public access to documents from 42 days in 2023 to 85 working days in 2024; notes that the Ombudsman surpassed its target (100 %) for the rate of clearance (i.e. cases closed compared to new cases registered during the year); regrets however that the average time (168 days) for dealing with an inquiry remained high in 2024 (up from 165 days in 2023), which is well above the target set of 150 days; notes in this context with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s report to Parliament on the follow-up to the discharge for the financial year 2023 (the ’Follow-up report’) that one of the newly elected Ombudsman’s key strategic objectives is to reinforce cooperation and dialogue with the Union institutions, bodies and agencies, with a view to ultimately reducing the time needed to process inquiries;12. Commends the Ombudsman for having reduced the time needed to process files at different levels of the procedure, such as the average time for dealing with a complaint (from 39 days in 2023 to 36 days in 2024) and for dealing with a complaint within the mandate (from 91 days in 2023 to 86 days in 2024); notes nevertheless a significant increase in the average time taken to close cases in the area of public access to documents from 42 days in 2023 to 85 working days in 2024; notes that the Ombudsman surpassed its target (100 %) for the rate of clearance (i.e. cases closed compared to new cases registered during the year); regrets however that the average time (168 days) for dealing with an inquiry remained high in 2024 (up from 165 days in 2023), which is well above the target set of 150 days; stresses that excessive delays in handling access-to-documents cases directly undermine citizens’ rights and public trust in the EU's administration overall; notes in this context with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s report to Parliament on the follow-up to the discharge for the financial year 2023 (the ’Follow-up report’) that one of the newly elected Ombudsman’s key strategic objectives is to reinforce cooperation and dialogue with the Union institutions, bodies and agencies, with a view to ultimately reducing the time needed to process inquiries;

Or. en

Amendment 13

Caterina Chinnici

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
12. Commends the Ombudsman for having reduced the time needed to process files at different levels of the procedure, such as the average time for dealing with a complaint (from 39 days in 2023 to 36 days in 2024) and for dealing with a complaint within the mandate (from 91 days in 2023 to 86 days in 2024); notes nevertheless a significant increase in the average time taken to close cases in the area of public access to documents from 42 days in 2023 to 85 working days in 2024; notes that the Ombudsman surpassed its target (100 %) for the rate of clearance (i.e. cases closed compared to new cases registered during the year); regrets however that the average time (168 days) for dealing with an inquiry remained high in 2024 (up from 165 days in 2023), which is well above the target set of 150 days; notes in this context with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s report to Parliament on the follow-up to the discharge for the financial year 2023 (the ’Follow-up report’) that one of the newly elected Ombudsman’s key strategic objectives is to reinforce cooperation and dialogue with the Union institutions, bodies and agencies, with a view to ultimately reducing the time needed to process inquiries;12. Commends the Ombudsman for having reduced the time needed to process files at different levels of the procedure, such as the average time for dealing with a complaint (from 39 days in 2023 to 36 days in 2024) and for dealing with a complaint within the mandate (from 91 days in 2023 to 86 days in 2024); notes nevertheless a significant increase in the average time taken to close cases in the area of public access to documents from 42 days in 2023 to 85 working days in 2024; notes that the Ombudsman surpassed its target (100 %) for the rate of clearance (i.e. cases closed compared to new cases registered during the year); regrets however that the average time (168 days) for dealing with an inquiry remained high in 2024 (up from 165 days in 2023), which is well above the target set of 150 days; recognises that complex cases, particularly those involving several institutions, may require longer processing times; notes in this context with satisfaction from the Ombudsman’s report to Parliament on the follow-up to the discharge for the financial year 2023 (the ’Follow-up report’) that one of the newly elected Ombudsman’s key strategic objectives is to reinforce cooperation and dialogue with the Union institutions, bodies and agencies, with a view to ultimately reducing the time needed to process inquiries;

Or. en

Amendment 14

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
13. Notes, as regards findings, that in 2024 the Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution in 14 cases and recommendations in three cases concerning public access to documents; notes an improvement with regard to positive replies by the Union institutions to the Ombudsman’s proposals to improve their administration, with an overall acceptance rate of 82 % in 2024 (compared to 81 % in 2023), whereas that rate includes cases closed in 2023; asks the Ombudsman to continue working towards generating a high level of compliance with its findings, recommendations and suggestions;13. Notes, as regards findings, that in 2024 the Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution in 14 cases and recommendations in three cases concerning public access to documents; notes an improvement with regard to positive replies by the Union institutions to the Ombudsman’s proposals to improve their administration, with an overall acceptance rate of 82 % in 2024 (compared to 81 % in 2023), whereas that rate includes cases closed in 2023; invites the Ombudsman to develop a targeted action plan aimed at identifying and addressing the most common reasons underlying the remaining non-accepted proposals and asks the Ombudsman to continue working towards generating a high level of compliance with its findings, recommendations and suggestions;

Or. en

Amendment 15

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
14. Appreciates that that the Ombudsman continued to make efforts in 2024 to enhance citizens’ awareness and understanding of its mandate; observes with satisfaction in this context an increase in the share of complaints within the mandate, from 33 % in 2022 and 37 % in 2023 to 39 % in 2024; notes further from the Follow-up report that one of the Ombudsman’s new strategic objectives is to launch targeted communication activities to ensure that citizens who need the Ombudsman are aware of their right and use of its services; notes in this context that, as a result, a rise in the number of complaints is expected, which will prompt the need to review and adapt the working methods, and enhance the use of digital tools, in particular AI, in order to further streamline the complaints handling process; invites the Ombudsman to keep the discharge authority informed of the progress made in this matter;14. Appreciates that that the Ombudsman continued to make efforts in 2024 to enhance citizens’ awareness and understanding of its mandate; observes with satisfaction in this context an increase in the share of complaints within the mandate, from 33 % in 2022 and 37 % in 2023 to 39 % in 2024; notes further from the Follow-up report that one of the Ombudsman’s new strategic objectives is to launch targeted communication activities to ensure that citizens who need the Ombudsman are aware of their right and use of its services; notes in this context that, as a result, a rise in the number of complaints is expected, which will prompt the need to review and adapt the working methods, and enhance the use of digital tools, in particular AI, in order to further streamline the complaints handling process; invites the Ombudsman to assess the potential budgetary and human resources impact of the expected increase in complaints and to keep the discharge authority informed of the progress made in this matter;

Or. en

Amendment 16

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
18. Notes from the Follow-up report that the Ombudsman continued to monitor transparency and accountability related issues linked to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), in the framework of handling complaints in the area of public access to documents, mostly regarding negotiations on the national recovery and resilience plans (RRP); notes among such issues the significant delays encountered by the Commission in replying to requests for access to information, and the level of access granted; appreciates that the Commission, in a case regarding the Dutch RRP, following Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, granted wider access to 172 documents; strongly condemns, however, the Commission for having taken 21 months to reply to the complainant’s (journalist) confirmatory application, i.e. in July 2024 when the granted access to documents was no longer useful for the purpose intended; agrees that in matters of significant public interest, such as the RRF, there should be no delays in providing access to documents; echoes the Ombudsman’s view that the Commission should carefully consider the existence of overriding public interest when applying the exceptions to public access under Regulation 1049/20014 ;18. Notes from the Follow-up report that the Ombudsman continued to monitor transparency and accountability related issues linked to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), in the framework of handling complaints in the area of public access to documents, mostly regarding negotiations on the national recovery and resilience plans (RRP); notes among such issues the significant delays encountered by the Commission in replying to requests for access to information, and the level of access granted; appreciates that the Commission, in a case regarding the Dutch RRP, following Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, granted wider access to 172 documents; strongly condemns, however, the Commission for having taken 21 months to reply to the complainant’s (journalist) confirmatory application, i.e. in July 2024 when the granted access to documents was no longer useful for the purpose intended; agrees that in matters of significant public interest, such as the RRF, there should be no delays in providing access to documents; echoes the Ombudsman’s view that the Commission should carefully consider the existence of overriding public interest when applying the exceptions to public access under Regulation 1049/20014 ; calls on the Ombudsman to continue prioritising systemic work on undue delays in access-to-documents procedures, including by identifying recurring administrative bottlenecks and good practices across institutions; supports the Ombudsman in promoting a consistent application of the ‘overriding public interest’ test, particularly for high-impact files, so that access is provided in time to be meaningful for public scrutiny;
__________________________________
4 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, pp. 43–48, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj).4 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, pp. 43–48, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 17

Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Olivier Chastel, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
18. Notes from the Follow-up report that the Ombudsman continued to monitor transparency and accountability related issues linked to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), in the framework of handling complaints in the area of public access to documents, mostly regarding negotiations on the national recovery and resilience plans (RRP); notes among such issues the significant delays encountered by the Commission in replying to requests for access to information, and the level of access granted; appreciates that the Commission, in a case regarding the Dutch RRP, following Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, granted wider access to 172 documents; strongly condemns, however, the Commission for having taken 21 months to reply to the complainant’s (journalist) confirmatory application, i.e. in July 2024 when the granted access to documents was no longer useful for the purpose intended; agrees that in matters of significant public interest, such as the RRF, there should be no delays in providing access to documents; echoes the Ombudsman’s view that the Commission should carefully consider the existence of overriding public interest when applying the exceptions to public access under Regulation 1049/20014 ;18. Notes from the Follow-up report that the Ombudsman continued to monitor transparency and accountability related issues linked to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), in the framework of handling complaints in the area of public access to documents, mostly regarding negotiations on the national recovery and resilience plans (RRP); notes among such issues the significant delays encountered by the Commission in replying to requests for access to information, and the level of access granted; appreciates that the Commission, in a case regarding the Dutch RRP, following Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, granted wider access to 172 documents; strongly condemns, however, the Commission for having taken 21 months to reply to the complainant’s (journalist) confirmatory application, i.e. in July 2024 when the granted access to documents was no longer useful for the purpose intended; agrees that in matters of significant public interest, such as the RRF, there should be no delays in providing access to documents; echoes the Ombudsman’s view that the Commission should carefully consider the existence of overriding public interest when applying the exceptions to public access under Regulation 1049/20014 ; considers such a delay in matters of significant public interest, such as the RRF, to be a denial of transparency; calls on the Ombudsman to formally notify the Parliament’s relevant committees as soon as a Commission delay on RRF-related documents exceeds six months, to allow for timely political scrutiny;
__________________________________
4 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, pp. 43–48, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj).4 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, pp. 43–48, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 18

Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza, Dick Erixon, Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
18. Notes from the Follow-up report that the Ombudsman continued to monitor transparency and accountability related issues linked to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), in the framework of handling complaints in the area of public access to documents, mostly regarding negotiations on the national recovery and resilience plans (RRP); notes among such issues the significant delays encountered by the Commission in replying to requests for access to information, and the level of access granted; appreciates that the Commission, in a case regarding the Dutch RRP, following Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, granted wider access to 172 documents; strongly condemns, however, the Commission for having taken 21 months to reply to the complainant’s (journalist) confirmatory application, i.e. in July 2024 when the granted access to documents was no longer useful for the purpose intended; agrees that in matters of significant public interest, such as the RRF, there should be no delays in providing access to documents; echoes the Ombudsman’s view that the Commission should carefully consider the existence of overriding public interest when applying the exceptions to public access under Regulation 1049/20014 ;18. Notes from the Follow-up report that the Ombudsman continued to monitor transparency and accountability related issues linked to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), in the framework of handling complaints in the area of public access to documents, mostly regarding negotiations on the national recovery and resilience plans (RRP); notes among such issues the significant delays encountered by the Commission in replying to requests for access to information, and the level of access granted, which are likely to erode citizen's trust in the EU administration; appreciates that the Commission, in a case regarding the Dutch RRP, following Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, granted wider access to 172 documents; strongly condemns, however, the Commission for having taken 21 months to reply to the complainant’s (journalist) confirmatory application, i.e. in July 2024 when the granted access to documents was no longer useful for the purpose intended; notes with concern that such delays weaken democratic scrutinity; agrees that in matters of significant public interest, such as the RRF, there should be no delays in providing access to documents; echoes the Ombudsman’s view that the Commission should carefully consider the existence of overriding public interest when applying the exceptions to public access under Regulation 1049/20014 ;
__________________________________
4 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, pp. 43–48, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj).4 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, pp. 43–48, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 19

Caterina Chinnici

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
18. Notes from the Follow-up report that the Ombudsman continued to monitor transparency and accountability related issues linked to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), in the framework of handling complaints in the area of public access to documents, mostly regarding negotiations on the national recovery and resilience plans (RRP); notes among such issues the significant delays encountered by the Commission in replying to requests for access to information, and the level of access granted; appreciates that the Commission, in a case regarding the Dutch RRP, following Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, granted wider access to 172 documents; strongly condemns, however, the Commission for having taken 21 months to reply to the complainant’s (journalist) confirmatory application, i.e. in July 2024 when the granted access to documents was no longer useful for the purpose intended; agrees that in matters of significant public interest, such as the RRF, there should be no delays in providing access to documents; echoes the Ombudsman’s view that the Commission should carefully consider the existence of overriding public interest when applying the exceptions to public access under Regulation 1049/20014 ;18. Notes from the Follow-up report that the Ombudsman continued to monitor transparency and accountability related issues linked to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), in the framework of handling complaints in the area of public access to documents, mostly regarding negotiations on the national recovery and resilience plans (RRP); notes among such issues the significant delays encountered by the Commission in replying to requests for access to information, and the level of access granted; appreciates that the Commission, in a case regarding the Dutch RRP, following Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution, granted wider access to 172 documents; strongly condemns, however, the Commission for having taken 21 months to reply to the complainant’s (journalist) confirmatory application, i.e. in July 2024 when the granted access to documents was no longer useful for the purpose intended; expresses concerns about the length of the delay; agrees that in matters of significant public interest, such as the RRF, there should be no delays in providing access to documents; echoes the Ombudsman’s view that the Commission should carefully consider the existence of overriding public interest when applying the exceptions to public access under Regulation 1049/20014 ;
__________________________________
4 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, pp. 43–48, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj).4 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, pp. 43–48, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 20

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
19. Recalls that, according to the Ombudsman, restrictions on access to documents, particularly legislative documents, should be exceptional and limited to what is absolutely necessary; also recalls that any decision denying public access to documents must be based on clearly and strictly defined legal exemptions, accompanied by a reasoned and specific justification, to enable citizens to understand the denial of access and make effective use of the legal remedies available; considers that a more proactive approach would help ensure effective transparency and prevent costly and burdensome legal disputes between citizens and institutions5 ;19. Recalls that, according to the Ombudsman, restrictions on access to documents, particularly legislative documents, should be exceptional and limited to what is absolutely necessary; also recalls that any decision denying public access to documents must be based on clearly and strictly defined legal exemptions, accompanied by a reasoned and specific justification, to enable citizens to understand the denial of access and make effective use of the legal remedies available; considers that a more proactive approach would help ensure effective transparency and prevent costly and burdensome legal disputes between citizens and institutions5 ; encourages the Ombudsman to further promote proactive publication practices, notably for legislative and policy-shaping documents, in order to strengthen transparency by design and to reduce the administrative burden and litigation risk associated with repetitive access-to-documents requests;
__________________________________
5 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0295_EN.html .5 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0295_EN.html .

Or. en

Amendment 21

Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
21. Notes a decrease of 4,90 % in the total number of the Ombudsman’s staff from 82 in 2023 to 78 in 2024; notes further that, in 2024, 46 officials were employed by the Ombudsman, compared to 40 in 2023 respectively, and 9 contract agents, same as in 2023; notes a slight decrease in the share of staff working on the core-business of the Ombudsman (complaints and inquiries), from 42,68 % in 2023 to 42,30 % in 2024; notes further that the staff occupation rate increased from 95 % in 2023 to 97 % in 2024 and the turnover rate increased from 5,20 % in 2023 to 6,40 % in 2024; reminds the importance of providing permanent contracts in order to maintain skills, continuity and productive working environment;21. Notes a decrease of 4,90 % in the total number of the Ombudsman’s staff from 82 in 2023 to 78 in 2024; notes further that, in 2024, 46 officials were employed by the Ombudsman, compared to 40 in 2023 respectively, and 9 contract agents, same as in 2023; notes a slight decrease in the share of staff working on the core-business of the Ombudsman (complaints and inquiries), from 42,68 % in 2023 to 42,30 % in 2024; notes further that the staff occupation rate increased from 95 % in 2023 to 97 % in 2024 and the turnover rate increased from 5,20 % in 2023 to 6,40 % in 2024; reminds the importance of providing permanent contracts in order to maintain skills, continuity and productive working environment; underlines that the declining staff numbers in core operational areas and the significant reliance on temporary contracts may reduce institutional memory and efficiency of the institution;

Or. en

Amendment 22

Ondřej Knotek, Virginie Joron, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
22. Recalls that the post of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman has been vacant for more than two years, since 1 September 2022; notes that Ombudsman launched an interinstitutional procedure for the recruitment of its new Secretary-General by publishing a call for expression of interest (n° OMB/2/2025) on 30 June 2025, which resulted in 14 eligible applications; notes further that the selection procedure was finalised in 2025 and a new Secretary-General has been selected, to take up his post on 1 January 2026; notes that in this case the Selection Board was made of three persons, one of which was the Ombudsman herself, who was involved in the assessment of the applications’ eligibility and interviews; believes that the fact that the selected Secretary-General previously served as head of cabinet to the current Ombudsman, who chaired the Selection Board, raises concerns about possible favouritism in the selection process, even if the latter was conducted lawfully;22. Recalls that the post of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman has been vacant for more than two years, since 1 September 2022; notes that Ombudsman launched an interinstitutional procedure for the recruitment of its new Secretary-General by publishing a call for expression of interest (n° OMB/2/2025) on 30 June 2025, which resulted in 14 eligible applications; notes further that the selection procedure was finalised in 2025 and a new Secretary-General has been selected, to take up his post on 1 January 2026; notes that in this case the Selection Board was made of three persons, one of which was the Ombudsman herself, who was involved in the assessment of the applications’ eligibility and interviews; emphasises that strict guarantees of confidentiality and discretion, as well as robust safeguards to prevent any form of political influence or interference in the functioning of the Ombudsman institution, must be ensured;

Or. en

Amendment 23

Caterina Chinnici

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
22. Recalls that the post of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman has been vacant for more than two years, since 1 September 2022; notes that Ombudsman launched an interinstitutional procedure for the recruitment of its new Secretary-General by publishing a call for expression of interest (n° OMB/2/2025) on 30 June 2025, which resulted in 14 eligible applications; notes further that the selection procedure was finalised in 2025 and a new Secretary-General has been selected, to take up his post on 1 January 2026; notes that in this case the Selection Board was made of three persons, one of which was the Ombudsman herself, who was involved in the assessment of the applications’ eligibility and interviews; believes that the fact that the selected Secretary-General previously served as head of cabinet to the current Ombudsman, who chaired the Selection Board, raises concerns about possible favouritism in the selection process, even if the latter was conducted lawfully;22. Recalls that the post of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman has been vacant for more than two years, since 1 September 2022; notes that, following several calls by the Parliament to fill this vacant post, Ombudsman launched an interinstitutional procedure for the recruitment of its new Secretary-General by publishing a call for expression of interest (n° OMB/2/2025) on 30 June 2025, which resulted in 14 eligible applications; notes further that the selection procedure was finalised in 2025 and a new Secretary-General has been selected, to take up his post on 1 January 2026; notes that in this case the Selection Board was made of three persons, one of which was the Ombudsman herself and the other two were external and independent members, who were involved in the assessment of the applications’ eligibility and interviews; maintains that the Ombudsman is a single-member institution, according to the Treaties and its Statute; takes note of the additional safeguards adopted during the selection procedure, including the attendance of the entire process by two senior staff members; notes that the procedure was conducted lawfully; notes that the selected Secretary-General, who was appointed head of cabinet to the current Ombudsman in February 2025, has been an EU official for 30 years with 10 years of managerial experience; calls on the Ombudsman to reflect further on how to protect selection procedures and appointing decisions from any perceived conflict of interest or possible favouritism;

Or. en

Amendment 24

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
22. Recalls that the post of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman has been vacant for more than two years, since 1 September 2022; notes that Ombudsman launched an interinstitutional procedure for the recruitment of its new Secretary-General by publishing a call for expression of interest (n° OMB/2/2025) on 30 June 2025, which resulted in 14 eligible applications; notes further that the selection procedure was finalised in 2025 and a new Secretary-General has been selected, to take up his post on 1 January 2026; notes that in this case the Selection Board was made of three persons, one of which was the Ombudsman herself, who was involved in the assessment of the applications’ eligibility and interviews; believes that the fact that the selected Secretary-General previously served as head of cabinet to the current Ombudsman, who chaired the Selection Board, raises concerns about possible favouritism in the selection process, even if the latter was conducted lawfully;22. Recalls that the post of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman has been vacant for more than two years, since 1 September 2022; notes that Ombudsman launched an interinstitutional procedure for the recruitment of its new Secretary-General by publishing a call for expression of interest (n° OMB/2/2025) on 30 June 2025, which resulted in 14 eligible applications; notes further that the selection procedure was finalised in 2025 and a new Secretary-General has been selected, to take up his post on 1 January 2026; notes that in this case the Selection Board was made of three persons, one of which was the Ombudsman herself, who was involved in the assessment of the applications’ eligibility and interviews; believes that the fact that the selected Secretary-General previously served as head of cabinet to the current Ombudsman and that the latter chaired the Selection Board may raise some concerns about the fairness of the selection process, even if the latter was conducted lawfully; stresses that Parliament does not require the Ombudsman to delegate her rights and obligations as the Appointing Authority but points at her presence in the Selection Board as the Union law does not require it; understands, nevertheless, that in a single-person institution such as the Ombudsman, the office-holder may need to be involved in the latest stages of certain selection procedures; recommends that the Ombudsman review its rules of procedure to ensure that this involvement is carried out with all guarantees of fairness and transparency and only to the extent strictly advisable;

Or. en

Amendment 25

Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
22. Recalls that the post of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman has been vacant for more than two years, since 1 September 2022; notes that Ombudsman launched an interinstitutional procedure for the recruitment of its new Secretary-General by publishing a call for expression of interest (n° OMB/2/2025) on 30 June 2025, which resulted in 14 eligible applications; notes further that the selection procedure was finalised in 2025 and a new Secretary-General has been selected, to take up his post on 1 January 2026; notes that in this case the Selection Board was made of three persons, one of which was the Ombudsman herself, who was involved in the assessment of the applications’ eligibility and interviews; believes that the fact that the selected Secretary-General previously served as head of cabinet to the current Ombudsman, who chaired the Selection Board, raises concerns about possible favouritism in the selection process, even if the latter was conducted lawfully;22. Recalls that the post of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman has been vacant for more than two years, since 1 September 2022; notes that Ombudsman launched an interinstitutional procedure for the recruitment of its new Secretary-General by publishing a call for expression of interest (n° OMB/2/2025) on 30 June 2025, which resulted in 14 eligible applications; notes further that the selection procedure was finalised in 2025 and a new Secretary-General has been selected, to take up his post on 1 January 2026; notes that in this case the Selection Board was made of three persons, one of which was the Ombudsman herself, who was involved in the assessment of the applications’ eligibility and interviews; believes that the fact that the selected Secretary-General previously served as head of cabinet to the current Ombudsman, who chaired the Selection Board, raises concerns about possible favouritism in the selection process, even if the latter was conducted lawfully; considers that even the perception of favouritism or conflict of interest is incompatible with the standards of integrity expected from the institution of the Ombudsman, regardless of the formal legality of the procedure;

Or. en

Amendment 26

Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Olivier Chastel, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
22. Recalls that the post of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman has been vacant for more than two years, since 1 September 2022; notes that Ombudsman launched an interinstitutional procedure for the recruitment of its new Secretary-General by publishing a call for expression of interest (n° OMB/2/2025) on 30 June 2025, which resulted in 14 eligible applications; notes further that the selection procedure was finalised in 2025 and a new Secretary-General has been selected, to take up his post on 1 January 2026; notes that in this case the Selection Board was made of three persons, one of which was the Ombudsman herself, who was involved in the assessment of the applications’ eligibility and interviews; believes that the fact that the selected Secretary-General previously served as head of cabinet to the current Ombudsman, who chaired the Selection Board, raises concerns about possible favouritism in the selection process, even if the latter was conducted lawfully;22. Recalls that the post of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman has been vacant for more than two years, since 1 September 2022; notes that Ombudsman launched an interinstitutional procedure for the recruitment of its new Secretary-General by publishing a call for expression of interest (n° OMB/2/2025) on 30 June 2025, which resulted in 14 eligible applications; notes further that the selection procedure was finalised in 2025 and a new Secretary-General has been selected, to take up his post on 1 January 2026; notes that in this case the Selection Board was made of three persons, one of which was the Ombudsman herself and two other external members, who were involved in the assessment of the applications’ eligibility and interviews; notes that the previous role of the selected Secretary-General as head of cabinet to the current Ombudsman, who chaired the Selection Board, could be perceived as giving rise to concerns, despite the lawful conduct of the selection process; calls on the Ombudsman to further reflect on ways to safeguard selection procedures against perceived conflicts of interest;

Or. en

Amendment 27

Ondřej Knotek, Virginie Joron, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
23. Notes that, following the hearing of the Ombudsman in the meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control of 6 November 2025, Members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control submitted a series of written follow-up questions on the selection of the new Secretary-General (OMB/2/2025) on 18 November 2025, to which the Ombudsman replied on 21 November 2025; disagrees in this context with the Ombudsman’s view that the Meroni case-law (C-9/56 and C-10/56) is of application, because that case-law does not concern the delegation of powers on staff matters (such as the selection of a staff member), but concerns the delegation of discretionary powers to external/private bodies; stresses further that Parliament does not require the Ombudsman to delegate her rights and obligations as the Appointing Authority, while questioning her presence in the Selection Board, since Article 3 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations explicitly states that “The Selection Board shall consist of a chairman designated by the Appointing Authority and of members designated by the Appointing Authority and the Staff Committee, each designating the same number”, which means that Union law does not require the Appointing Authority to be a member of the SB; underlines that by taking a final decision, which is a task of the Appointing Authority, the latter also confirms that the whole selection procedure has been lawful, including the compliance of the candidate with all admissibility and eligibility criteria, whereas such task would become merely superficial if the Appointing Authority has also been the Chair of the Selection Board at the previous stages of the procedure/competition, which is what happened with the current procedure; notes in addition the Ombudsman’s refusal to provide the discharge authority with all documents related to the eligibility check, assessment of applications, the actual interviews of shortlisted candidates with the Selection Board and the bilateral interview with the Ombudsman, citing among arguments “limits of the legal framework governing confidentiality” to avoid “the risk of undermining the independence and integrity of the selection process” if such documents would be disclosed; recalls that Parliament has the right to request any necessary information under Article 319(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; underlines that forwarding information to Parliament for discharge purposes does not equal making that information public; stresses further that Parliament has put in place a comprehensive set of Security Rules, which comply with the same principles and standards as other Union institutions, including security clearance, need-to-know principle, secure area and reading rooms, penalties for breaches etc.; urges, in light of the above, the Ombudsman to provide the discharge authority with all documents regarding the eligibility checks, assessment of applications, the actual interviews of shortlisted candidates with the Selection Board and the bilateral interview with the Ombudsman in connection with the procedure for the selection of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman(OMB/2/2025);23. Notes that, following the hearing of the Ombudsman in the meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control of 6 November 2025, Members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control submitted a series of written follow-up questions on the selection of the new Secretary-General (OMB/2/2025) on 18 November 2025, to which the Ombudsman replied on 21 November 2025; stresses further that Parliament does not require the Ombudsman to delegate her rights and obligations as the Appointing Authority, while questioning her presence in the Selection Board, since Article 3 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations explicitly states that “The Selection Board shall consist of a chairman designated by the Appointing Authority and of members designated by the Appointing Authority and the Staff Committee, each designating the same number”, which means that Union law does not require the Appointing Authority to be a member of the SB;

Or. en

Amendment 28

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
23. Notes that, following the hearing of the Ombudsman in the meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control of 6 November 2025, Members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control submitted a series of written follow-up questions on the selection of the new Secretary-General (OMB/2/2025) on 18 November 2025, to which the Ombudsman replied on 21 November 2025; disagrees in this context with the Ombudsman’s view that the Meroni case-law (C-9/56 and C-10/56) is of application, because that case-law does not concern the delegation of powers on staff matters (such as the selection of a staff member), but concerns the delegation of discretionary powers to external/private bodies; stresses further that Parliament does not require the Ombudsman to delegate her rights and obligations as the Appointing Authority, while questioning her presence in the Selection Board, since Article 3 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations explicitly states that “The Selection Board shall consist of a chairman designated by the Appointing Authority and of members designated by the Appointing Authority and the Staff Committee, each designating the same number”, which means that Union law does not require the Appointing Authority to be a member of the SB; underlines that by taking a final decision, which is a task of the Appointing Authority, the latter also confirms that the whole selection procedure has been lawful, including the compliance of the candidate with all admissibility and eligibility criteria, whereas such task would become merely superficial if the Appointing Authority has also been the Chair of the Selection Board at the previous stages of the procedure/competition, which is what happened with the current procedure; notes in addition the Ombudsman’s refusal to provide the discharge authority with all documents related to the eligibility check, assessment of applications, the actual interviews of shortlisted candidates with the Selection Board and the bilateral interview with the Ombudsman, citing among arguments “limits of the legal framework governing confidentiality” to avoid “the risk of undermining the independence and integrity of the selection process” if such documents would be disclosed; recalls that Parliament has the right to request any necessary information under Article 319(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; underlines that forwarding information to Parliament for discharge purposes does not equal making that information public; stresses further that Parliament has put in place a comprehensive set of Security Rules, which comply with the same principles and standards as other Union institutions, including security clearance, need-to-know principle, secure area and reading rooms, penalties for breaches etc.; urges, in light of the above, the Ombudsman to provide the discharge authority with all documents regarding the eligibility checks, assessment of applications, the actual interviews of shortlisted candidates with the Selection Board and the bilateral interview with the Ombudsman in connection with the procedure for the selection of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman(OMB/2/2025);23. Disagrees with the Ombudsman’s view that the Meroni case-law (C-9/56 and C-10/56) is applicable, as it does not concern the delegation of powers on staff matters (such as the selection of a staff member), but rather the delegation of discretionary powers to external/private bodies; notes that the Ombudsman has argued that “limits of the legal framework governing confidentiality”, in order to avoid “the risk of undermining the independence and integrity of the selection process”, prevent her from providing the discharge authority with all documents related to the eligibility check, assessment of applications, the actual interviews of shortlisted candidates with the Selection Board and the bilateral interview with the Ombudsman; recalls Parliament’s right to obtain the information necessary for discharge, underlines that providing such information does not amount to making it public, and stresses that Parliament has adequate safeguards in place to handle sensitive material securely;

Or. en

Amendment 29

Caterina Chinnici

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
23. Notes that, following the hearing of the Ombudsman in the meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control of 6 November 2025, Members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control submitted a series of written follow-up questions on the selection of the new Secretary-General (OMB/2/2025) on 18 November 2025, to which the Ombudsman replied on 21 November 2025; disagrees in this context with the Ombudsman’s view that the Meroni case-law (C-9/56 and C-10/56) is of application, because that case-law does not concern the delegation of powers on staff matters (such as the selection of a staff member), but concerns the delegation of discretionary powers to external/private bodies; stresses further that Parliament does not require the Ombudsman to delegate her rights and obligations as the Appointing Authority, while questioning her presence in the Selection Board, since Article 3 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations explicitly states that “The Selection Board shall consist of a chairman designated by the Appointing Authority and of members designated by the Appointing Authority and the Staff Committee, each designating the same number”, which means that Union law does not require the Appointing Authority to be a member of the SB; underlines that by taking a final decision, which is a task of the Appointing Authority, the latter also confirms that the whole selection procedure has been lawful, including the compliance of the candidate with all admissibility and eligibility criteria, whereas such task would become merely superficial if the Appointing Authority has also been the Chair of the Selection Board at the previous stages of the procedure/competition, which is what happened with the current procedure; notes in addition the Ombudsman’s refusal to provide the discharge authority with all documents related to the eligibility check, assessment of applications, the actual interviews of shortlisted candidates with the Selection Board and the bilateral interview with the Ombudsman, citing among arguments “limits of the legal framework governing confidentiality” to avoid “the risk of undermining the independence and integrity of the selection process” if such documents would be disclosed; recalls that Parliament has the right to request any necessary information under Article 319(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; underlines that forwarding information to Parliament for discharge purposes does not equal making that information public; stresses further that Parliament has put in place a comprehensive set of Security Rules, which comply with the same principles and standards as other Union institutions, including security clearance, need-to-know principle, secure area and reading rooms, penalties for breaches etc.; urges, in light of the above, the Ombudsman to provide the discharge authority with all documents regarding the eligibility checks, assessment of applications, the actual interviews of shortlisted candidates with the Selection Board and the bilateral interview with the Ombudsman in connection with the procedure for the selection of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman(OMB/2/2025);23. Notes that, following the hearing of the Ombudsman in the meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control of 6 November 2025, Members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control submitted a series of written follow-up questions on the selection of the new Secretary-General (OMB/2/2025) on 18 November 2025, to which the Ombudsman replied on 21 November 2025; disagrees in this context with the Ombudsman’s view that the Meroni case-law (C-9/56 and C-10/56) is of application, because that case-law does not concern the delegation of powers on staff matters (such as the selection of a staff member), but concerns the delegation of discretionary powers to external/private bodies; stresses further that Parliament does not require the Ombudsman to delegate her rights and obligations as the Appointing Authority, while questioning her presence in the Selection Board, since Article 3 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations explicitly states that “The Selection Board shall consist of a chairman designated by the Appointing Authority and of members designated by the Appointing Authority and the Staff Committee, each designating the same number”, which means that Union law does not require the Appointing Authority to be a member of the SB; notes in addition the Ombudsman’s refusal to provide the discharge authority with all documents related to the eligibility check, assessment of applications, the actual interviews of shortlisted candidates with the Selection Board and the bilateral interview with the Ombudsman, citing among arguments “limits of the legal framework governing confidentiality” to avoid “the risk of undermining the independence and integrity of the selection process” if such documents would be disclosed; recalls that Parliament has the right to request any necessary information under Article 319(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; underlines that forwarding information to Parliament for discharge purposes does not equal making that information public; stresses further that Parliament has put in place a comprehensive set of Security Rules, which comply with the same principles and standards as other Union institutions, including security clearance, need-to-know principle, secure area and reading rooms, penalties for breaches etc.; urges, in light of the above, the Ombudsman to further consider the Parliament’s request and provide the discharge authority with all documents regarding the eligibility checks, assessment of applications, the actual interviews of shortlisted candidates with the Selection Board and the bilateral interview with the Ombudsman in connection with the procedure for the selection of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman(OMB/2/2025);

Or. en

Amendment 30

Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Olivier Chastel, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
23. Notes that, following the hearing of the Ombudsman in the meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control of 6 November 2025, Members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control submitted a series of written follow-up questions on the selection of the new Secretary-General (OMB/2/2025) on 18 November 2025, to which the Ombudsman replied on 21 November 2025; disagrees in this context with the Ombudsman’s view that the Meroni case-law (C-9/56 and C-10/56) is of application, because that case-law does not concern the delegation of powers on staff matters (such as the selection of a staff member), but concerns the delegation of discretionary powers to external/private bodies; stresses further that Parliament does not require the Ombudsman to delegate her rights and obligations as the Appointing Authority, while questioning her presence in the Selection Board, since Article 3 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations explicitly states that “The Selection Board shall consist of a chairman designated by the Appointing Authority and of members designated by the Appointing Authority and the Staff Committee, each designating the same number”, which means that Union law does not require the Appointing Authority to be a member of the SB; underlines that by taking a final decision, which is a task of the Appointing Authority, the latter also confirms that the whole selection procedure has been lawful, including the compliance of the candidate with all admissibility and eligibility criteria, whereas such task would become merely superficial if the Appointing Authority has also been the Chair of the Selection Board at the previous stages of the procedure/competition, which is what happened with the current procedure; notes in addition the Ombudsman’s refusal to provide the discharge authority with all documents related to the eligibility check, assessment of applications, the actual interviews of shortlisted candidates with the Selection Board and the bilateral interview with the Ombudsman, citing among arguments “limits of the legal framework governing confidentiality” to avoid “the risk of undermining the independence and integrity of the selection process” if such documents would be disclosed; recalls that Parliament has the right to request any necessary information under Article 319(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; underlines that forwarding information to Parliament for discharge purposes does not equal making that information public; stresses further that Parliament has put in place a comprehensive set of Security Rules, which comply with the same principles and standards as other Union institutions, including security clearance, need-to-know principle, secure area and reading rooms, penalties for breaches etc.; urges, in light of the above, the Ombudsman to provide the discharge authority with all documents regarding the eligibility checks, assessment of applications, the actual interviews of shortlisted candidates with the Selection Board and the bilateral interview with the Ombudsman in connection with the procedure for the selection of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman(OMB/2/2025);23. Notes that, following the hearing of the Ombudsman in the meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control of 6 November 2025, Members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control submitted a series of written follow-up questions on the selection of the new Secretary-General (OMB/2/2025) on 18 November 2025, to which the Ombudsman replied on 21 November 2025; disagrees in this context with the Ombudsman’s view that the Meroni case-law (C-9/56 and C-10/56) is of application, because that case-law does not concern the delegation of powers on staff matters (such as the selection of a staff member), but concerns the delegation of discretionary powers to external/private bodies; stresses further that Parliament does not require the Ombudsman to delegate her rights and obligations as the Appointing Authority, while questioning her presence in the Selection Board, since Article 3 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations explicitly states that “The Selection Board shall consist of a chairman designated by the Appointing Authority and of members designated by the Appointing Authority and the Staff Committee, each designating the same number”, which means that Union law does not require the Appointing Authority to be a member of the SB; underlines that by taking a final decision, which is a task of the Appointing Authority, the latter also confirms that the whole selection procedure has been lawful, including the compliance of the candidate with all admissibility and eligibility criteria; notes, however, that this role may appear less distinct where the Appointing Authority has also chaired the Selection Board at earlier stages of the procedure, as was the case in the current process; notes in addition the Ombudsman’s refusal to provide the discharge authority with all documents related to the eligibility check, assessment of applications, the actual interviews of shortlisted candidates with the Selection Board and the bilateral interview with the Ombudsman, citing among arguments “limits of the legal framework governing confidentiality” to avoid “the risk of undermining the independence and integrity of the selection process” if such documents would be disclosed; recalls that Parliament has the right to request any necessary information under Article 319(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; underlines that forwarding information to Parliament for discharge purposes does not equal making that information public; stresses further that Parliament has put in place a comprehensive set of Security Rules, which comply with the same principles and standards as other Union institutions, including security clearance, need-to-know principle, secure area and reading rooms, penalties for breaches etc.; urges, in light of the above, the Ombudsman to provide the discharge authority with all documents regarding the eligibility checks, assessment of applications, the actual interviews of shortlisted candidates with the Selection Board and the bilateral interview with the Ombudsman in connection with the procedure for the selection of the Secretary-General of the Ombudsman(OMB/2/2025);

Or. en

Amendment 31

Caterina Chinnici

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
24. Underlines that the Ombudsman has the role to promote good administration including by making sure that the ethical framework of all Union institutions, bodies and agencies is solid and able to ensure transparency and accountability; firmly believes that any perception of favouritism or conflicts of interest is to be avoided by all Union institutions, bodies and agencies , in particular the Ombudsman, as even the appearance of such issues would undermine their integrity and mission and could negatively affect the trust of Union citizens;24. Underlines that the Ombudsman has the role to promote good administration including by making sure that the ethical framework of all Union institutions, bodies and agencies is solid and able to ensure transparency and accountability; firmly believes that the Ombudsman must meet the highest standards of independence, impartiality and integrity in order to credibly fulfil its mandate and to ensure the trust of Union citizens;

Or. en

Amendment 32

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
24. Underlines that the Ombudsman has the role to promote good administration including by making sure that the ethical framework of all Union institutions, bodies and agencies is solid and able to ensure transparency and accountability; firmly believes that any perception of favouritism or conflicts of interest is to be avoided by all Union institutions, bodies and agencies , in particular the Ombudsman, as even the appearance of such issues would undermine their integrity and mission and could negatively affect the trust of Union citizens;24. Underlines that the Ombudsman has the role to promote good administration including by making sure that the ethical framework of all Union institutions, bodies and agencies is solid and able to ensure transparency and accountability; firmly believes that any perception of favouritism or conflicts of interest is to be avoided by all Union institutions, bodies and agencies , in particular the Ombudsman, as even the appearance of such issues would undermine their integrity and mission and could negatively affect the trust of Union citizens; recalls that, as the Union institution entrusted with promoting ethical standards and good administration across the EU administration, the Ombudsman is expected to apply particularly stringent standards to its own governance and senior appointments, in order to set a benchmark for other institutions;

Or. en

Amendment 33

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
24. Underlines that the Ombudsman has the role to promote good administration including by making sure that the ethical framework of all Union institutions, bodies and agencies is solid and able to ensure transparency and accountability; firmly believes that any perception of favouritism or conflicts of interest is to be avoided by all Union institutions, bodies and agencies , in particular the Ombudsman, as even the appearance of such issues would undermine their integrity and mission and could negatively affect the trust of Union citizens;24. Underlines that the Ombudsman has the role to promote good administration including by making sure that the ethical framework of all Union institutions, bodies and agencies is solid and able to ensure transparency and accountability; firmly believes that any perception of favouritism or conflicts of interest is to be avoided by all Union institutions, bodies and agencies , in particular the Ombudsman, as even the appearance of such issues would undermine their credibility and could negatively affect the trust of Union citizens;

Or. en

Amendment 34

Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Olivier Chastel, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
24. Underlines that the Ombudsman has the role to promote good administration including by making sure that the ethical framework of all Union institutions, bodies and agencies is solid and able to ensure transparency and accountability; firmly believes that any perception of favouritism or conflicts of interest is to be avoided by all Union institutions, bodies and agencies , in particular the Ombudsman, as even the appearance of such issues would undermine their integrity and mission and could negatively affect the trust of Union citizens;24. Underlines that the Ombudsman has the role to promote good administration including by making sure that the ethical framework of all Union institutions, bodies and agencies is solid and able to ensure transparency and accountability; stresses that it is important for Union institutions, bodies and agencies, and in particular the Ombudsman, to be mindful of perceptions of favouritism or conflicts of interest, as such perceptions could risk undermining their integrity and mission and affect the trust of Union citizens;

Or. en

Amendment 35

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24 a (new)

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
24 a. Encourages the Ombudsman to consider conducting an internal ex post reflection on highly scrutinised appointment procedures, with a view to identifying lessons learned and possible improvements for future processes, and to inform the discharge authority of the outcomes;

Or. en

Amendment 36

Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Olivier Chastel, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 25

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
25. Notes that, despite being a small institution, the Ombudsman managed to have 19 nationalities represented in its staff in 2024, same as in 2023; observes, however, an overrepresentation of some nationalities (one of them accounting for more than 30 % of the staff of the Ombudsman); urges the Ombudsman to step up its efforts to achieve a more balanced geographical distribution of nationals from as many Member States as possible within its staff;25. Notes that, despite being a small institution, the Ombudsman managed to have 19 nationalities represented in its staff in 2024, same as in 2023; observes, however, an overrepresentation of some nationalities (one of them accounting for more than 30 % of the staff of the Ombudsman); stresses that in a small institution, such a high concentration of a single nationality can impact the interinstitutional perception of the office's diversity; calls on the Ombudsman to adopt targeted recruitment and outreach measures specifically aimed at underrepresented Member States to ensure the office remains a reflection of the Union's diversity;

Or. en

Amendment 37

Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Olivier Chastel, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 26

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
26. Notes that, in terms of gender balance, the Ombudsman employs more women than men in all categories of staff, in particular at management level where all posts are held by women; notes an overall staff representation of 68 % women and 32 % men, compared to 67 % women and 33 % men in 2023; invites the Ombudsman to strive for a more balanced gender representation of its staff;26. Notes that, in terms of gender balance, the Ombudsman employs more women than men in all categories of staff, in particular at management level where all posts are held by women; notes an overall staff representation of 68 % women and 32 % men, compared to 67 % women and 33 % men in 2023; invites the Ombudsman to strive for a more balanced gender representation of its staff; urges the Ombudsman to develop a strategy to address the fact that men are currently entirely absent from management roles; believes that ensuring the institution better reflects the diverse composition of the Union's citizens is essential for maintaining a balanced and inclusive working environment across all levels of the hierarchy;

Or. en

Amendment 38

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 29

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
29. Notes that the Ombudsman welcomed 18 paid trainees in 2024 (the same number as in 2023), one of which was selected under the Ombudsman’s commendable traineeship programme for persons with disabilities; renews its emphasis that traineeships should be remunerated in compliance with the Parliament resolution of 14 June 2023 on quality traineeships in the Union (2020/2005(INL)), which calls for all internships in the Union to be paid;29. Notes that the Ombudsman welcomed 18 paid trainees in 2024 (the same number as in 2023), one of which was selected under the Ombudsman’s commendable traineeship programme for persons with disabilities; renews its emphasis that traineeships should be remunerated in compliance with the Parliament resolution of 14 June 2023 on quality traineeships in the Union (2020/2005(INL)), which calls for all internships in the Union to be paid; stresses that paid traineeships are essential to ensure equal opportunities;

Or. en

Amendment 39

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
37. Welcomes the positive impact of Ombudsman’s use of automatic translations, which enhanced the accessibility of the Ombudsman’s website, streamlined case allocation and accelerated the processing of complaints, leading to a reduction in translation costs by over 65 % (from 2022 to 2024) and in administrative burden; encourages the Ombudsman to continue testing and evaluating AI tools and use cases, while taking a prudent approach to their development and deployment;37. Welcomes the positive impact of Ombudsman’s use of automatic translations, which enhanced the accessibility of the Ombudsman’s website, streamlined case allocation and accelerated the processing of complaints, leading to a reduction in translation costs by over 65 % (from 2022 to 2024) and in administrative burden; encourages the Ombudsman to continue testing and evaluating AI tools and use cases, while taking a prudent approach to their development and deployment, in particular the medium-term budgetary implications related to maintenance, scalability, staff skills and potential dependencies on digital tools and service providers;

Or. en

Amendment 40

Caterina Chinnici

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
37. Welcomes the positive impact of Ombudsman’s use of automatic translations, which enhanced the accessibility of the Ombudsman’s website, streamlined case allocation and accelerated the processing of complaints, leading to a reduction in translation costs by over 65 % (from 2022 to 2024) and in administrative burden; encourages the Ombudsman to continue testing and evaluating AI tools and use cases, while taking a prudent approach to their development and deployment;37. Welcomes the positive impact of Ombudsman’s use of automatic translations, which enhanced the accessibility of the Ombudsman’s website, streamlined case allocation and accelerated the processing of complaints, leading to a reduction in translation costs by over 65 % (from 2022 to 2024) and in administrative burden; encourages the Ombudsman to continue testing and evaluating AI tools and use cases, while taking a prudent approach to their development and deployment, provided that their deployment remains secure, cost-effective and subject to appropriate human oversight;

Or. en

Amendment 41

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 38

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
38. Notes with satisfaction from the Questionnaire that the Ombudsman has put in place internal guidelines on the use of third-party generative AI tools which should provide clarity and direction on the safe and effective integration of AI tools into the Ombudsman’s workflows; looks forward to the planned expansion of AI use beyond translation, for example for the integration of the “ombudsprudence” within a Large Language Model of the Commission and to leverage historical case law that will feed in future inquiries; recommends nevertheless the Ombudsman, with regard to interpretation services, to prioritise human-provided interpretation over AI-based solutions; takes note that the Ombudsman acquired several AI tools to support internal and external communication activities, particularly video production, thereby enhancing efficiency and quality in content creation in 2024;38. Notes with satisfaction from the Questionnaire that the Ombudsman has put in place internal guidelines on the use of third-party generative AI tools which should provide clarity and direction on the safe and effective integration of AI tools into the Ombudsman’s workflows; looks forward to the planned expansion of AI use beyond translation, for example for the integration of the “ombudsprudence” within a Large Language Model of the Commission and to leverage historical case law that will feed in future inquiries; encourages the Ombudsman to continue testing and deploying AI tools where they demonstrably improve accessibility and efficiency; stresses, however, the need for clear governance, human oversight, transparency towards users, and robust data-protection safeguards, including documented risk assessments and quality controls for automated outputs, in particular where AI may influence case handling, allocation or external communications;

Or. en

Amendment 42

Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Olivier Chastel, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 38

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
38. Notes with satisfaction from the Questionnaire that the Ombudsman has put in place internal guidelines on the use of third-party generative AI tools which should provide clarity and direction on the safe and effective integration of AI tools into the Ombudsman’s workflows; looks forward to the planned expansion of AI use beyond translation, for example for the integration of the “ombudsprudence” within a Large Language Model of the Commission and to leverage historical case law that will feed in future inquiries; recommends nevertheless the Ombudsman, with regard to interpretation services, to prioritise human-provided interpretation over AI-based solutions; takes note that the Ombudsman acquired several AI tools to support internal and external communication activities, particularly video production, thereby enhancing efficiency and quality in content creation in 2024;38. Notes with satisfaction from the Questionnaire that the Ombudsman has put in place internal guidelines on the use of third-party generative AI tools which should provide clarity and direction on the safe and effective integration of AI tools into the Ombudsman’s workflows; looks forward to the planned expansion of AI use beyond translation, for example for the integration of the “ombudsprudence” within a Large Language Model of the Commission and to leverage historical case law that will feed in future inquiries; calls for a protocol ensuring that all AI-generated legal insights are verified by human inquiry officers; further requests reporting on the technical measures adopted to eliminate algorithmic bias and safeguard the objectivity of the institution's findings; recommends nevertheless the Ombudsman, with regard to interpretation services, to prioritise human-provided interpretation over AI-based solutions; takes note that the Ombudsman acquired several AI tools to support internal and external communication activities, particularly video production, thereby enhancing efficiency and quality in content creation in 2024;

Or. en

Amendment 43

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 39

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
39. Notes with appreciation from the Questionnaire that in 2024, one staff member completed an intensive two-month training in data science and artificial intelligence to strengthen the Ombudsman’s expertise in this field and now represents the Ombudsman in the AI Correspondents Network established by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) following the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the ‘Artificial Intelligence Act’)6 ; takes note further the Ombudsman’s commitment to develop a training on the safe and ethical use of AI tools for all its staff; notes further that the Ombudsman held monthly a targeted mandatory training to enhance staff awareness and skills in cybersecurity best practices throughout 2024; notes with satisfaction that the Ombudsman requires all its staff to complete regular cybersecurity trainings;39. Notes with appreciation from the Questionnaire that in 2024, one staff member completed an intensive two-month training in data science and artificial intelligence to strengthen the Ombudsman’s expertise in this field and now represents the Ombudsman in the AI Correspondents Network established by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) following the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the ‘Artificial Intelligence Act’)6 ; takes note further the Ombudsman’s commitment to develop a training on the safe and ethical use of AI tools for all its staff; notes further that the Ombudsman held monthly a targeted mandatory training to enhance staff awareness and skills in cybersecurity best practices throughout 2024; notes with satisfaction that the Ombudsman requires all its staff to complete regular cybersecurity trainings; encourages the Ombudsman to continue developing its digitalisation strategy, ensuring that the deployment of artificial intelligence tools remains fully compliant with principles of ethical use, transparency, data protection, human oversight, and protection against algorithmic bias or misuse;
__________________________________
6 Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) (OJ L, 2024/1689, 12.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj).6 Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) (OJ L, 2024/1689, 12.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 44

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 39 a (new)

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
39 a. Stresses the importance of procurement as a tool to advance policy objectives such as environmental and social agenda; calls on the Ombudsman to strengthen in its procurement procedures the inclusion of strategic criteria on social responsibility and environmental sustainability;

Or. en

Amendment 45

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 46

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
46. Welcomes the financial and administrative savings achieved through inter-institutional cooperation, in particular the wide-range of service-level agreements concluded by the Ombudsman with Parliament and the Commission in a variety of areas and the participation in interinstitutional procurement procedures; welcomes the formalisation of the collaboration between Parliament and the Ombudsman in October 2024 in the field of cybersecurity through a revised inter-institutional agreement which provides a framework for Parliament to continue providing solid cybersecurity support to the Ombudsman;46. Welcomes the financial and administrative savings achieved through inter-institutional cooperation, in particular the wide-range of service-level agreements concluded by the Ombudsman with Parliament and the Commission in a variety of areas and the participation in interinstitutional procurement procedures; welcomes the formalisation of the collaboration between Parliament and the Ombudsman in October 2024 in the field of cybersecurity through a revised inter-institutional agreement which provides a framework for Parliament to continue providing solid cybersecurity support to the Ombudsman; encourages the Ombudsman to ensure that regular and up-to-date cybersecurity training is provided to all staff, in order to maintain a high level of awareness and resilience against evolving cyber threats;

Or. en

Amendment 46

Caterina Chinnici

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 46

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
46. Welcomes the financial and administrative savings achieved through inter-institutional cooperation, in particular the wide-range of service-level agreements concluded by the Ombudsman with Parliament and the Commission in a variety of areas and the participation in interinstitutional procurement procedures; welcomes the formalisation of the collaboration between Parliament and the Ombudsman in October 2024 in the field of cybersecurity through a revised inter-institutional agreement which provides a framework for Parliament to continue providing solid cybersecurity support to the Ombudsman;46. Welcomes the financial and administrative savings achieved through inter-institutional cooperation, in particular the wide-range of service-level agreements concluded by the Ombudsman with Parliament and the Commission in a variety of areas and the participation in interinstitutional procurement procedures; welcomes the formalisation of the collaboration between Parliament and the Ombudsman in October 2024 in the field of cybersecurity through a revised inter-institutional agreement which provides a framework for Parliament to continue providing solid cybersecurity support to the Ombudsman; stresses that such cooperation is essential to avoid duplication of structures and to ensure efficient use of Union resources;

Or. en

Amendment 47

Caterina Chinnici

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 50

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
50. Notes from the Questionnaire that the overall budget for communication and promotional activities (publications, event organisation, digital communication etc.) decreased by approx. 38 % from EUR 155 200 in 2023 to EUR 96 515 in 2024;50. Notes from the Questionnaire that the overall budget for communication and promotional activities (publications, event organisation, digital communication etc.) decreased by approx. 38 % from EUR 155 200 in 2023 to EUR 96 515 in 2024; welcomes this reduction and underlines that communication activities should remain focused on informing citizens about the Ombudsman’s mandate;

Or. en

Amendment 48

Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 50

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
50. Notes from the Questionnaire that the overall budget for communication and promotional activities (publications, event organisation, digital communication etc.) decreased by approx. 38 % from EUR 155 200 in 2023 to EUR 96 515 in 2024;50. Notes from the Questionnaire that the overall budget for communication and promotional activities (publications, event organisation, digital communication etc.) decreased by approx. 38 % from EUR 155 200 in 2023 to EUR 96 515 in 2024; stresses that, while budgetary allocations must be strategic and results-oriented, the Ombudsman should retain sufficient communication capacity to ensure public awareness of its role, responsibilities and services, in particular for citizens turning to the Ombudsman to address concerns at Union's level;

Or. en

Amendment 49

Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Olivier Chastel, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 50

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
50. Notes from the Questionnaire that the overall budget for communication and promotional activities (publications, event organisation, digital communication etc.) decreased by approx. 38 % from EUR 155 200 in 2023 to EUR 96 515 in 2024;50. Notes from the Questionnaire that the overall budget for communication and promotional activities (publications, event organisation, digital communication etc.) decreased by approx. 38 % from EUR 155 200 in 2023 to EUR 96 515 in 2024; warns that this reduction may undermine the strategic goal to empower citizens; suggests reallocating savings to ensure the Ombudsman maintains necessary visibility and outreach;

Or. en

Amendment 50

Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 55

Motion for a resolutionAmendment
55. Welcomes the sustained level of media attention, with roughly 5 000 articles referencing the Ombudsman’s work in 2024; notes that the Ombudsman primarily gauges public engagement through social media growth and website traffic, whereas follower numbers increased steadily during the year; observes that the Ombudsman’s Instagram, LinkedIn and X accounts gained a total of 9 186 additional followers, surpassing its targets for social media activities in 2024, as well as with regard to the number of unique visitors to its website.55. Welcomes the sustained level of media attention, with roughly 5 000 articles referencing the Ombudsman’s work in 2024; notes that the Ombudsman primarily gauges public engagement through social media growth and website traffic, whereas follower numbers increased steadily during the year; observes that the Ombudsman’s Instagram, LinkedIn and X accounts gained a total of 9 186 additional followers, surpassing its targets for social media activities in 2024, as well as with regard to the number of unique visitors to its website; stresses the importance of continuing to prioritise external communication in order to enhance public awareness of the Ombudsman’s mandate and the services it provides to Union citizens.

Or. en