Sittings · Document

Draft report (2025/2138(INI)) 2025-10-03

Activities of the European Ombudsman – annual report 2024

Committee on Petitions

Amendment 1

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Citation 11 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard mission report following the fact-finding visit to Austria from 14 to 16 April 2025 with the aim of assessing on site the implications of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and the impact of the growing wolf population on alpine farming, based on petitions n° 1055/2019, 0827/2020, 1102/2020, 0772/2023 and 0798/2024;

Or. en

Amendment 2

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Recital A

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
A. whereas the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2024 was formally submitted to the President of Parliament on 13 May 2025 and the Ombudsman, Ms Teresa Anjinho, presented the report to the Committee on Petitions in Brussels on 24 June 2025;	A. whereas the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2024 was formally submitted to the President of Parliament on 13 May 2025 and the Ombudsman, Ms Teresa Anjinho, presented the report to the Committee on Petitions in Brussels on 24 June 2025; welcomes the election of Ms. Teresa Anjinho as new Ombudsman on the 17th of December 2024;

Or. en

Amendment 3

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Recital A

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
A. whereas the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2024 was formally submitted to the President of Parliament on 13 May 2025 and the Ombudsman, Ms Teresa Anjinho, presented the report to the Committee on Petitions in Brussels on 24 June 2025;	A. whereas the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2024 was formally submitted to the President of Parliament on 13 May 2025 and the Ombudswoman, Ms Teresa Anjinho, presented the report to the Committee on Petitions in Brussels on 24 June 2025;

Or. en

Amendment 4

Murielle Laurent

Motion for a resolution

Recital A a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	A a. whereas the activities covered by the 2024 annual report were carried out under the mandate of Ms Emily O’Reilly, who served as European Ombudsman from 2013 until the end of her term in early 2025;

Or. en

Amendment 5

Cristina Guarda

Motion for a resolution

Recital B a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	B a. whereas Article 15 TFEU states that ‘in order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible’ and that ‘any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right of access to documents of the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies’;

Or. en

Amendment 6

Cristina Guarda

Motion for a resolution

Recital B b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	B b. whereas Article 41 of the Charter states that ‘every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union’;

Or. en

Amendment 7

Cristina Guarda

Motion for a resolution

Recital B c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	B c. whereas Article 43 of the Charter states that ‘any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to refer to the European Ombudsman cases of maladministration in the activities of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role’;

Or. en

Amendment 8

Cristina Guarda

Motion for a resolution

Recital B d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	B d. whereas Article 298(1) TFEU states that ‘in carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration’;

Or. en

Amendment 9

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Recital B a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	B a. whereas the European Union is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), a binding international human rights instrument to ‘promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity’; whereas compliance with the UN CRPD in the EU is monitored by the EU Framework for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was chaired by the European Disability Forum in 2024; whereas as a member of this framework, the Ombudsman pays close attention to the EU administration’s implementation of the UN CRPD and the Framework prepared an updated contribution, which included input from the Ombudsman, for the UN CRPD Committee to help ensure the Committee can complete in 2025 its periodic review of the EU’s performance in relation to the Convention by respecting the fact that the EU is a regional organization with its competences based on the Treaties;

Or. en

Amendment 10

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Recital B a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	B a. Whereas the work of the European Ombudsman contributes not only to transparency and accountability, but also to strengthening institutional efficiency, legal certainty, and competitiveness across the Union, thereby supporting innovation, growth, and citizens’ trust in the European project;

Or. en

Amendment 11

Murielle Laurent

Motion for a resolution

Recital C

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
C. whereas in 2024, the Ombudsman opened 415 inquiries, of which 411 were complaint-based and 4 own-initiative, while closing 427 inquiries (421 complaint-based and 6 own-initiative);	C. whereas 17 770 citizens were helped in 2024, whereas the Ombudsman opened 415 inquiries, of which 411 were complaint-based and 4 own-initiative, while closing 427 inquiries (421 complaint-based and 6 own-initiative);

Or. en

Amendment 12

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Recital G a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	G a. whereas in 2024 the Ombudsman has made a series of recommendations to help the European Commission ensure the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in its decision making remains accountable; whereas the Ombudsman also underlined the importance of transparency when it comes to ensuring public trust that the EU administration will use AI responsibility; whereas she encouraged the Commission to reflect on what information it will make publicly available around future AI projects and to consider carrying out public consultations on the possible adoption or development of powerful new AI tools;

Or. en

Amendment 13

Murielle Laurent

Motion for a resolution

Recital G a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	G a. whereas, according to the Eurobarometer survey of November 2024, 51% of Europeans tend to trust the European Union; whereas it is essential for the institutions to be held accountable so as to increase the level of satisfaction of EU citizens; whereas the Ombudsman plays a vital role in helping EU institutions become more open, effective and citizen-friendly with the aim of strengthening citizens’ confidence in the Union;

Or. en

Amendment 14

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Recital H a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	H a. whereas Article 41 of the Charter states that ‘every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union’;

Or. en

Amendment 15

Marcin Sypniewski

Motion for a resolution

Recital H

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
H. whereas the Ombudsman’s role is instrumental in guaranteeing the protection of citizens’ rights arising from the EU Treaties, in ensuring the full transparency, democratic accountability and integrity of the EU decision-making processes, and in improving ethical standards within the EU administration; whereas the Ombudsman is a redress mechanism for citizens encountering problems in gaining access to documents held by the EU institutions;	H. whereas the Ombudsman’s role is instrumental in guaranteeing the protection of citizens’ rights arising from the EU Treaties, in ensuring the full transparency, democratic accountability and integrity of the EU decision-making processes, and in improving ethical standards within the EU administration; whereas the Ombudsman is a redress mechanism for citizens encountering problems in gaining access to documents held by the EU institutions; whereas the excessive amount of published material of a general nature, coupled with a lack of access to key documents (e.g. behind-the-scenes discussions between representatives of the European Commission and representatives of the medical and transport industries, etc.), gives rise to a false transparency and makes it difficult for citizens to exercise genuine scrutiny over the activities of the institutions;

Or. pl

Amendment 16

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Recital H

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
H. whereas the Ombudsman’s role is instrumental in guaranteeing the protection of citizens’ rights arising from the EU Treaties, in ensuring the full transparency, democratic accountability and integrity of the EU decision-making processes, and in improving ethical standards within the EU administration; whereas the Ombudsman is a redress mechanism for citizens encountering problems in gaining access to documents held by the EU institutions;	H. Whereas the role of the Ombudsman is essential to ensuring the protection of citizens' rights under the Union Treaties, to guaranteeing full transparency, democratic accountability and integrity of the Union's decision-making processes, and to improve ethical standards within the Union administration, including the President of the European Commission; whereas the European Ombudsman offers a means of redress to citizens who encounter difficulties in accessing documents held by the Union institutions, including text messages, electronic exchanges, in particular ephemeral messages1a, all of which constitute administrative documents1b;
	_________________
	1a https://euractiv.fr/news/la-mediatrice-europeenne-enquete-sur-les-sms-echanges-entre-von-der-leyen-et-macron-on-the-subject-of-the-eu-mercosur-agreement/
	1b Judgment of the General Court in Case T-36/23\|Stevi and The New York Times v Commission

Or. en

Amendment 17

Murielle Laurent

Motion for a resolution

Recital H

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
H. whereas the Ombudsman’s role is instrumental in guaranteeing the protection of citizens’ rights arising from the EU Treaties, in ensuring the full transparency, democratic accountability and integrity of the EU decision-making processes, and in improving ethical standards within the EU administration; whereas the Ombudsman is a redress mechanism for citizens encountering problems in gaining access to documents held by the EU institutions;	H. whereas the Ombudsman’s role is instrumental in guaranteeing the protection of citizens’ rights arising from the EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , in ensuring the full transparency, democratic accountability and integrity of the EU decision-making processes, and in improving ethical standards within the EU administration; whereas the Ombudsman is a redress mechanism for citizens encountering problems in gaining access to documents held by the EU institutions;

Or. en

Amendment 18

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Recital H a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	H a. whereas, in recent times, disinformation and malicious activities from third countries have increased significantly and may undermine transparency, accountability and freedom of expression in the European Union, which are central to the work of the European Ombudsman in protecting European citizens; whereas that such phenomena represent new challenges the Ombudsman may have to address in the exercise of her mandate;

Or. en

Amendment 19

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Recital I

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
I. whereas the Ombudsman launched an own-initiative inquiry, following a public consultation on transparency and accountability in EU environmental decision-making; whereas the Ombudsman concluded that the average time of 14.5 months and, in some cases, several years, taken by the Commission to prepare draft decisions for granting or refusing authorisation for dangerous chemicals, despite the statutory deadline of three months, amounted to maladministration; whereas the Ombudsman also found that the Commission’s failure to ensure sufficient transparency of the related overall decision-making process constituted maladministration, as it prevented the public from understanding the status of the individual files and the reasons for delays;	I. whereas the Ombudsman launched an own-initiative inquiry, following a public consultation on transparency and accountability in EU environmental decision-making; whereas the Ombudsman concluded that the average time of 14.5 months and, in some cases, several years, taken by the Commission to prepare draft decisions for granting or refusing authorisation for dangerous chemicals, despite the statutory deadline of three months, amounted to maladministration; whereas the Ombudsman also found that the lack of sufficient information on the status of files and on the reasons for delays made it difficult for the public to properly understand the course of the procedure;

Or. en

Amendment 20

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Recital I

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
I. whereas the Ombudsman launched an own-initiative inquiry, following a public consultation on transparency and accountability in EU environmental decision-making; whereas the Ombudsman concluded that the average time of 14.5 months and, in some cases, several years, taken by the Commission to prepare draft decisions for granting or refusing authorisation for dangerous chemicals, despite the statutory deadline of three months, amounted to maladministration; whereas the Ombudsman also found that the Commission’s failure to ensure sufficient transparency of the related overall decision-making process constituted maladministration, as it prevented the public from understanding the status of the individual files and the reasons for delays;	I. whereas the Ombudsman found that the Commission’s failure to ensure sufficient transparency of the related overall decision-making process constituted maladministration, as it prevented the public from understanding the status of the individual files and the reasons for delays;

Or. fr

Amendment 21

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Recital J

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
J. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into the Council of the EU’s continued use of corporate sponsorships, as this has given rise to persistent and considerable public disquiet regarding the influence that sponsors might exert on the EU decision-making process, particularly on deliberations concerning EU policy and legislation affecting such sponsors’ private interests, entailing serious reputational risks for both the Council and the Union as a whole;	deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 22

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Recital J

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
J. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into the Council of the EU’s continued use of corporate sponsorships, as this has given rise to persistent and considerable public disquiet regarding the influence that sponsors might exert on the EU decision-making process, particularly on deliberations concerning EU policy and legislation affecting such sponsors’ private interests, entailing serious reputational risks for both the Council and the Union as a whole;	J. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into the Council of the EU’s continued use of corporate sponsorships;

Or. en

Amendment 23

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Recital J

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
J. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into the Council of the EU’s continued use of corporate sponsorships, as this has given rise to persistent and considerable public disquiet regarding the influence that sponsors might exert on the EU decision-making process, particularly on deliberations concerning EU policy and legislation affecting such sponsors’ private interests, entailing serious reputational risks for both the Council and the Union as a whole;	J. whereas the Ombudsman examined the Council of the EU’s continued use of corporate sponsorships, as this has given rise to public disquiet regarding the influence that sponsors might exert on the EU decision-making process, particularly on deliberations concerning EU policy and legislation affecting such sponsors;

Or. en

Amendment 24

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Recital J a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	J a. whereas the Ombudsman acknowledged the Commission’s efforts to shorten delays in processing complaints related to alleged breaches of EU law, to enhance communication with individual complainants, and to improve the dissemination of relevant public information through its dedicated infringements website; whereas the Ombudsman called on the Commission to pursue further improvements in this area;

Or. en

Amendment 25

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Recital K

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
K. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry on the basis of a complaint by non-governmental organisations that denounced the fact that the all-corporate membership of the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, set up by the Commission, was at odds with the Commission’s rules on balanced representation; whereas the Ombudsman found the explanations provided by the Commission with regard to the complete exclusion of civil society representatives, even with observer status, from this group unconvincing; whereas the Ombudsman’s inspections revealed that the group discussed and promoted further structural fossil fuel energy supply, with social, environmental, economic and geopolitical implications for the EU;	deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 26

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Recital K

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
K. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry on the basis of a complaint by non-governmental organisations that denounced the fact that the all-corporate membership of the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, set up by the Commission, was at odds with the Commission’s rules on balanced representation; whereas the Ombudsman found the explanations provided by the Commission with regard to the complete exclusion of civil society representatives, even with observer status, from this group unconvincing; whereas the Ombudsman’s inspections revealed that the group discussed and promoted further structural fossil fuel energy supply, with social, environmental, economic and geopolitical implications for the EU;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 27

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Recital K

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
K. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry on the basis of a complaint by non-governmental organisations that denounced the fact that the all-corporate membership of the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, set up by the Commission, was at odds with the Commission’s rules on balanced representation; whereas the Ombudsman found the explanations provided by the Commission with regard to the complete exclusion of civil society representatives, even with observer status, from this group unconvincing; whereas the Ombudsman’s inspections revealed that the group discussed and promoted further structural fossil fuel energy supply, with social, environmental, economic and geopolitical implications for the EU;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 28

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Recital K

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
K. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry on the basis of a complaint by non-governmental organisations that denounced the fact that the all-corporate membership of the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, set up by the Commission, was at odds with the Commission’s rules on balanced representation; whereas the Ombudsman found the explanations provided by the Commission with regard to the complete exclusion of civil society representatives, even with observer status, from this group unconvincing; whereas the Ombudsman’s inspections revealed that the group discussed and promoted further structural fossil fuel energy supply, with social, environmental, economic and geopolitical implications for the EU;	K. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry on the basis of a complaint by non-governmental organisations that denounced the fact that the all-corporate membership of the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, set up by the Commission, was at odds with the Commission’s rules on balanced representation; whereas the Ombudsman found the explanations provided by the Commission with regard to the complete exclusion of civil society representatives, even with observer status, from this group unconvincing; whereas the Ombudsman’s inspections revealed that the group also discussed and promoted further structural fossil fuel energy supply;

Or. en

Amendment 29

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Recital L

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
L. whereas the Ombudsman conducted a complaint-based inquiry into the composition of the Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB), the outcome of which confirmed the absence of the necessary social and environmental expertise, in breach of the provisions of the Commission’s communication on the RSB; whereas the Ombudsman also examined how the RSB interacts with interest representatives and determined that if outreach activities of RSB members give rise to doubts as regards the RSB’s independence and impartiality, RSB members should refrain from carrying out such activities;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 30

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Recital L

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
L. whereas the Ombudsman conducted a complaint-based inquiry into the composition of the Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB), the outcome of which confirmed the absence of the necessary social and environmental expertise, in breach of the provisions of the Commission’s communication on the RSB; whereas the Ombudsman also examined how the RSB interacts with interest representatives and determined that if outreach activities of RSB members give rise to doubts as regards the RSB’s independence and impartiality, RSB members should refrain from carrying out such activities;	L. whereas the Ombudsman conducted a complaint-based inquiry into the composition of the Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB), the outcome of which confirmed the current composition does not sufficiently ensure the social and environmental expertise required under the Commission’s communication on the RSB; whereas the Ombudsman also examined how the RSB interacts with interest representatives and determined that if outreach activities of RSB members give rise to doubts as regards the RSB’s independence and impartiality, RSB members should refrain from carrying out such activities;

Or. en

Amendment 31

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Recital M

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
M. whereas the Ombudsman opened a complaint-based inquiry into how the Commission works on ‘urgent’ legislative proposals, such as the recent amendment to the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP), and into how the Commission assesses whether its proposals are consistent with the climate-neutrality goals of the European Climate Law2 ;	deleted
_________________
2 Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’) (OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1119/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 32

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Recital M

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
M. whereas the Ombudsman opened a complaint-based inquiry into how the Commission works on ‘urgent’ legislative proposals, such as the recent amendment to the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP), and into how the Commission assesses whether its proposals are consistent with the climate-neutrality goals of the European Climate Law2 ;	M. whereas the Ombudsman opened a complaint-based inquiry into how the Commission works on ‘urgent’ legislative proposals, such as the recent amendment to the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP);
_________________
2 Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’) (OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1119/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 33

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Recital M

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
M. whereas the Ombudsman opened a complaint-based inquiry into how the Commission works on ‘urgent’ legislative proposals, such as the recent amendment to the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP), and into how the Commission assesses whether its proposals are consistent with the climate-neutrality goals of the European Climate Law2 ;	M. whereas the Ombudsman opened a complaint-based inquiry into how the Commission works on urgent legislative proposals, such as the recent amendment to the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP), and into how the Commission assesses whether its proposals are consistent with the climate-neutrality goals of the European Climate Law2 ;
_________________	_________________
2 Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’) (OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1119/oj).	2 Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’) (OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1119/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 34

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Recital N

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
N. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry into the Commission’s decision to invite only industry representatives to a workshop on pesticides, a working area that has a direct impact on health and the environment, and concluded that the Commission could have ensured greater transparency; whereas the Ombudsman considered public concern surrounding the organisation of industry-only workshops legitimate, as they are perceived as an occasion for industry to unduly influence the Commission’s work; whereas when inquiring into the rules relating to the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides, including a guidance document on comparative assessment, the Ombudsman expressed particular concern about the Commission’s failure to act in improving the rules on pesticide substitution, despite having been aware since 2020 that they were ineffective;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 35

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Recital N

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
N. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry into the Commission’s decision to invite only industry representatives to a workshop on pesticides, a working area that has a direct impact on health and the environment, and concluded that the Commission could have ensured greater transparency; whereas the Ombudsman considered public concern surrounding the organisation of industry-only workshops legitimate, as they are perceived as an occasion for industry to unduly influence the Commission’s work; whereas when inquiring into the rules relating to the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides, including a guidance document on comparative assessment, the Ombudsman expressed particular concern about the Commission’s failure to act in improving the rules on pesticide substitution, despite having been aware since 2020 that they were ineffective;	N. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry into the Commission’s decision to invite only industry representatives to a workshop on pesticides, a working area that has a direct impact on health and the environment, and concluded that the Commission could have ensured greater transparency; whereas the Ombudsman considered public concern surrounding the organisation of industry-only workshops legitimate, as they are perceived as an occasion for industry to unduly influence the Commission’s work;

Or. fr

Amendment 36

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Recital N

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
N. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry into the Commission’s decision to invite only industry representatives to a workshop on pesticides, a working area that has a direct impact on health and the environment, and concluded that the Commission could have ensured greater transparency; whereas the Ombudsman considered public concern surrounding the organisation of industry-only workshops legitimate, as they are perceived as an occasion for industry to unduly influence the Commission’s work; whereas when inquiring into the rules relating to the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides, including a guidance document on comparative assessment, the Ombudsman expressed particular concern about the Commission’s failure to act in improving the rules on pesticide substitution, despite having been aware since 2020 that they were ineffective;	N. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry into the Commission’s decision to invite industry representatives to a workshop on pesticides, a working area that has a direct impact on health and the environment, and suggested to the Commission to develop a dedicated webpage and to publish information and documents about upcoming pesticide events as soon as they become available; whereas the Ombudsman considered public concern surrounding the organisation of industry-only workshops legitimate, as they are perceived as an occasion for industry to unduly influence the Commission’s work;

Or. en

Amendment 37

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Recital N

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
N. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry into the Commission’s decision to invite only industry representatives to a workshop on pesticides, a working area that has a direct impact on health and the environment, and concluded that the Commission could have ensured greater transparency; whereas the Ombudsman considered public concern surrounding the organisation of industry-only workshops legitimate, as they are perceived as an occasion for industry to unduly influence the Commission’s work; whereas when inquiring into the rules relating to the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides, including a guidance document on comparative assessment, the Ombudsman expressed particular concern about the Commission’s failure to act in improving the rules on pesticide substitution, despite having been aware since 2020 that they were ineffective;	N. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry into the Commission’s decision to invite only industry representatives to a workshop on pesticides, and concluded that greater transparency could have been ensured; whereas the Ombudsman considered public concern regarding the composition of such workshops legitimate;

Or. en

Amendment 38

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Recital N

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
N. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry into the Commission’s decision to invite only industry representatives to a workshop on pesticides, a working area that has a direct impact on health and the environment, and concluded that the Commission could have ensured greater transparency; whereas the Ombudsman considered public concern surrounding the organisation of industry-only workshops legitimate, as they are perceived as an occasion for industry to unduly influence the Commission’s work; whereas when inquiring into the rules relating to the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides, including a guidance document on comparative assessment, the Ombudsman expressed particular concern about the Commission’s failure to act in improving the rules on pesticide substitution, despite having been aware since 2020 that they were ineffective;	N. whereas the Ombudsman launched an inquiry into the Commission’s decision to invite only industry representatives to a workshop on pesticides, a working area that has a direct impact on health and the environment, and concluded that the Commission could have ensured greater transparency; whereas the Ombudsman considered public concern surrounding the organisation of industry-only workshops legitimate, as they are perceived as an occasion for industry to disproportionate influence the Commission’s work; whereas when inquiring into the rules relating to the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides, including a guidance document on comparative assessment, the Ombudsman expressed concern that, while the Commission had been preparing measures to address the shortcomings in the rules on pesticide substitution since 2020, these have not yet been finalised or implemented;

Or. en

Amendment 39

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Recital O

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
O. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into how the Commission dealt with the allegations of a conflict of interest involving one of its Commissioners in the context of its handling of an infringement complaint; whereas the Ombudsman confirmed that the Commission decided to assign the infringement complaint to the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI), despite being alerted to the fact that the brother of the Commissioner for Agriculture was among the members of the Polish Parliament who had proposed the legislation at issue; whereas the Ombudsman found that the manner in which the Commission had assessed the conflict of interest was flawed and perceived as negatively affecting its independence;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 40

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Recital O

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
O. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into how the Commission dealt with the allegations of a conflict of interest involving one of its Commissioners in the context of its handling of an infringement complaint; whereas the Ombudsman confirmed that the Commission decided to assign the infringement complaint to the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI), despite being alerted to the fact that the brother of the Commissioner for Agriculture was among the members of the Polish Parliament who had proposed the legislation at issue; whereas the Ombudsman found that the manner in which the Commission had assessed the conflict of interest was flawed and perceived as negatively affecting its independence;	O. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into how the Commission dealt with the allegations of a conflict of interest involving one of its Commissioners in the context of its handling of an infringement complaint;

Or. en

Amendment 41

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Recital O

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
O. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into how the Commission dealt with the allegations of a conflict of interest involving one of its Commissioners in the context of its handling of an infringement complaint; whereas the Ombudsman confirmed that the Commission decided to assign the infringement complaint to the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI), despite being alerted to the fact that the brother of the Commissioner for Agriculture was among the members of the Polish Parliament who had proposed the legislation at issue; whereas the Ombudsman found that the manner in which the Commission had assessed the conflict of interest was flawed and perceived as negatively affecting its independence;	O. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into how the Commission dealt with the allegations of a conflict of interest involving one of its Commissioners in the context of its handling of an infringement complaint; whereas the Ombudsman noted that the way in which the situation was assessed raised concerns regarding the perception of the institution’s independence;

Or. en

Amendment 42

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Recital O

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
O. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into how the Commission dealt with the allegations of a conflict of interest involving one of its Commissioners in the context of its handling of an infringement complaint; whereas the Ombudsman confirmed that the Commission decided to assign the infringement complaint to the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI), despite being alerted to the fact that the brother of the Commissioner for Agriculture was among the members of the Polish Parliament who had proposed the legislation at issue; whereas the Ombudsman found that the manner in which the Commission had assessed the conflict of interest was flawed and perceived as negatively affecting its independence;	O. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into how the Commission dealt with the allegations of a conflict of interest involving one of its Commissioners in the context of its handling of an infringement complaint; whereas the Ombudsman confirmed that the Commission decided to assign the infringement complaint to the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI), despite being alerted to the fact that the brother of the Commissioner for Agriculture was among the members of the Polish Parliament who had proposed the legislation at issue; whereas the Ombudsman found that the manner in which the Commission had assessed the conflict of interest was flawed and could be perceived as negatively affecting its independence;

Or. en

Amendment 43

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Recital O a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	O a. Whereas the Ombudsman inquired into how the Commission handled concerns regarding guidelines developed by a European Reference Network for a rare diseases by facilitating discussions between healthcare providers from across Europe ; whereas the Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s establishment of a complaint mechanism to allow people to raise issues about the activities and functioning of such networks, which facilitate collaboration among healthcare providers across Europe; whereas this mechanism was created in response to the Ombudsman’s inquiry;

Or. en

Amendment 44

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Recital P

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
P. whereas Parliament approved with near unanimity the Ombudsman’s Special Report on the time the Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents and asked the Commission to correct the systemic delays in its handling of access requests, as they are in breach of the democratic principles set out in the EU Treaties; whereas the Ombudsman found that the Commission missed the legal deadlines for reviewing initial access decisions in 85 % of cases and that delays typically occurred in relation to access requests concerning areas of significant public importance; whereas such delays have particularly serious consequences in the case of legislative documents, as they undermine citizens’ ability to scrutinise EU decisions and policies in a timely manner, hampering their meaningful participation in the democratic life of the EU;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 45

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Recital P

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
P. whereas Parliament approved with near unanimity the Ombudsman’s Special Report on the time the Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents and asked the Commission to correct the systemic delays in its handling of access requests, as they are in breach of the democratic principles set out in the EU Treaties; whereas the Ombudsman found that the Commission missed the legal deadlines for reviewing initial access decisions in 85 % of cases and that delays typically occurred in relation to access requests concerning areas of significant public importance; whereas such delays have particularly serious consequences in the case of legislative documents, as they undermine citizens’ ability to scrutinise EU decisions and policies in a timely manner, hampering their meaningful participation in the democratic life of the EU;	P. whereas Parliament approved with near unanimity the Ombudsman’s Special Report on the time the Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents and invited the Commission to address the delays in access requests; whereas the Ombudsman found that the Commission missed the legal deadlines for reviewing initial access decisions in 85 % of cases; whereas delays can be problematic in the case of legislative documents;

Or. en

Amendment 46

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Recital Q

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Q. whereas the Ombudsman launched a number of inquiries into the lack of public access to legislative documents, criticising the Commission’s refusal to grant access to stakeholder and Member State input on the EU Nature Restoration Law3 and to documents on the revision of EU rules on food information to consumers; whereas the Ombudsman examined, from a more systemic viewpoint, the EU institutions’ compliance with the principle of legislative transparency, as laid down in the EU Treaties, and concluded that both the Council and the Commission were failing to give full effect to this principle;	Q. whereas the Ombudsman launched a number of inquiries into the lack of public access to legislative documents, criticising the Commission’s refusal to grant access to stakeholder and Member State; whereas the Ombudsman examined, from a more systemic viewpoint, the EU institutions’ compliance with the principle of legislative transparency, as laid down in the EU Treaties, and concluded that both the Council and the Commission were failing to give full effect to this principle;
_________________
3 Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869 (OJ L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1991/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 47

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Recital Q

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Q. whereas the Ombudsman launched a number of inquiries into the lack of public access to legislative documents, criticising the Commission’s refusal to grant access to stakeholder and Member State input on the EU Nature Restoration Law3 and to documents on the revision of EU rules on food information to consumers; whereas the Ombudsman examined, from a more systemic viewpoint, the EU institutions’ compliance with the principle of legislative transparency, as laid down in the EU Treaties, and concluded that both the Council and the Commission were failing to give full effect to this principle;	Q. whereas the Ombudsman launched a number of inquiries into the lack of public access to legislative documents, criticising the Commission’s refusal to grant access to stakeholder and Member State input on the EU Nature Restoration Law3 and to documents on the revision of EU rules on food information to consumers; whereas the Ombudsman examined, from a more systemic viewpoint, the EU institutions’ compliance with the principle of legislative transparency, as laid down in the EU Treaties, and concluded that both the Council and the Commission were not adhering fully to this principle;
_________________	_________________
3 Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869 (OJ L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1991/oj).	3 Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869 (OJ L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1991/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 48

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Recital Q a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Q a. whereas the Ombudsman carried out several complaint-based inquiries related to the use of remote testing by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO); whereas in six inquiries, the Ombudsman found maladministration: in particular, the Ombudsman noted that EPSO had failed to properly address the complainants’ arguments, had demonstrated a lack of flexibility in doing so, or had taken unreasonable decisions; whereas she also criticised EPSO for often providing complainants with contradictory information concerning how to prove they had faced problems and for rejecting complaints even when candidates had followed the instructions for reporting technical issues;

Or. en

Amendment 49

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Recital R

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
R. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea and revealed the existence of serious shortcomings in Frontex’s role in search and rescue operations, including the failure to ensure that Frontex’s fundamental rights monitors are sufficiently involved in decision-making on maritime emergencies, as well as the absence of internal Frontex guidelines on issuing emergency signals; whereas the Ombudsman underscored that there is no single accountability mechanism at EU level that could independently investigate the role of the national authorities, the role of Frontex, and the role of the Commission, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with fundamental rights provisions under the EU treaties;	deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 50

Mireia Borrás Pabón, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Recital R

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
R. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea and revealed the existence of serious shortcomings in Frontex’s role in search and rescue operations, including the failure to ensure that Frontex’s fundamental rights monitors are sufficiently involved in decision-making on maritime emergencies, as well as the absence of internal Frontex guidelines on issuing emergency signals; whereas the Ombudsman underscored that there is no single accountability mechanism at EU level that could independently investigate the role of the national authorities, the role of Frontex, and the role of the Commission, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with fundamental rights provisions under the EU treaties;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 51

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Recital R

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
R. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea and revealed the existence of serious shortcomings in Frontex’s role in search and rescue operations, including the failure to ensure that Frontex’s fundamental rights monitors are sufficiently involved in decision-making on maritime emergencies, as well as the absence of internal Frontex guidelines on issuing emergency signals; whereas the Ombudsman underscored that there is no single accountability mechanism at EU level that could independently investigate the role of the national authorities, the role of Frontex, and the role of the Commission, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with fundamental rights provisions under the EU treaties;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 52

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Recital R

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
R. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea and revealed the existence of serious shortcomings in Frontex’s role in search and rescue operations, including the failure to ensure that Frontex’s fundamental rights monitors are sufficiently involved in decision-making on maritime emergencies, as well as the absence of internal Frontex guidelines on issuing emergency signals; whereas the Ombudsman underscored that there is no single accountability mechanism at EU level that could independently investigate the role of the national authorities, the role of Frontex, and the role of the Commission, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with fundamental rights provisions under the EU treaties;	R. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea and revealed the existence of serious shortcomings in Frontex’s role in search and rescue operations ; recalls that Frontex encounters difficulties which make it necessary to enhance resources and its budget in order for the agency to carry out its tasks under the best possible conditions; recalls that Frontex faces significant operational and legal constraints, which underline the need to reinforce its mandate, resources and budget so that the Agency can better support Member States, including in search and rescue situations; stresses the importance of ensuring that fundamental rights monitors are effectively integrated in decision-making on maritime emergencies, and that clear operational guidelines are developed; underlines, however, that responsibility for compliance with international and EU law rests primarily with the Member States, while the Commission has a key role in ensuring coherence, transparency and accountability across the Union’s migration and border management policies;

Or. en

Amendment 53

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Sebastian Kruis, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Recital R

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
R. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea and revealed the existence of serious shortcomings in Frontex’s role in search and rescue operations, including the failure to ensure that Frontex’s fundamental rights monitors are sufficiently involved in decision-making on maritime emergencies, as well as the absence of internal Frontex guidelines on issuing emergency signals; whereas the Ombudsman underscored that there is no single accountability mechanism at EU level that could independently investigate the role of the national authorities, the role of Frontex, and the role of the Commission, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with fundamental rights provisions under the EU treaties;	R. whereas the Ombudsman has conducted an inquiry into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea and has stressed that there is no single accountability mechanism at European level to independently investigate the respective roles of national authorities, Frontex and the Commission;

Or. en

Amendment 54

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Recital R

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
R. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea and revealed the existence of serious shortcomings in Frontex’s role in search and rescue operations, including the failure to ensure that Frontex’s fundamental rights monitors are sufficiently involved in decision-making on maritime emergencies, as well as the absence of internal Frontex guidelines on issuing emergency signals; whereas the Ombudsman underscored that there is no single accountability mechanism at EU level that could independently investigate the role of the national authorities, the role of Frontex, and the role of the Commission, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with fundamental rights provisions under the EU treaties;	R. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into the serious shortcomings in Frontex’s role in search and rescue operations, especially after the deaths in the Mediterranean sea, including the failure to ensure that Frontex’s fundamental rights monitors are sufficiently involved in decision-making on maritime emergencies, as well as the absence of internal Frontex guidelines on issuing emergency signals; whereas the Ombudsman underscored that there is no single accountability mechanism at EU level that could independently investigate the role of the national authorities, the role of Frontex, and the role of the Commission, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with fundamental rights provisions under the EU treaties;

Or. en

Amendment 55

Nikos Pappas

Motion for a resolution

Recital R a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	R a. whereas in 2024 the European Ombudsman adopted a decision in case 507/2023/PVV concerning access to European Commission documents related to surveillance and monitoring systems in the Reception and Identification Centres (RICs) in Greece; whereas the Ombudsman criticised the Commission’s significant delays in responding to public access requests, which constituted a breach of the principle of good administration and of citizens’ right to transparency;

Or. en

Amendment 56

Murielle Laurent

Motion for a resolution

Recital R a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	R a. whereas the ongoing humanitarian crises in Ukraine and the Middle East have also given rise to a number of complaints;

Or. en

Amendment 57

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Recital S

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
S. whereas according to the Ombudsman the Commission’s refusal to disclose documents relating to stakeholder input on its legislative proposal for combating child sexual abuse amounted to maladministration, as it hindered the public from scrutinising the impact and influence of such private stakeholders;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 58

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Recital S

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
S. whereas according to the Ombudsman the Commission’s refusal to disclose documents relating to stakeholder input on its legislative proposal for combating child sexual abuse amounted to maladministration, as it hindered the public from scrutinising the impact and influence of such private stakeholders;	S. whereas according to the Ombudsman the Commission could have provided greater access to documents relating to stakeholder input on its legislative proposal for combating child sexual abuse as limited access hindered the public from scrutinising the impact and influence of such private stakeholders;

Or. en

Amendment 59

Marcin Sypniewski

Motion for a resolution

Recital S a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Sa. whereas from 2013 to 2024, the office of European Ombudsman was held by Emily O'Reilly, whose efforts in the areas of transparency and accountability – including inquiries concerning access to information on COVID-19 vaccine negotiations, recommendations linked to the prevention of maladministration in the EU institutions, and findings following the 'Qatargate' scandal – were instrumental in highlighting the need to improve administration in the Union;

Or. pl

Amendment 60

Galato Alexandraki, Emmanouil Fragkos

Motion for a resolution

Recital ΙΘ a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Sa. whereas the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions has authorised a fact-finding mission to Greece in relation to the Tempi rail tragedy, planned for 2026; whereas this mission should be carried out with full transparency, with the involvement of victims' families, railway workers and the competent authorities, and should result in publicly available findings with a clear follow-up schedule;

Or. el

Amendment 61

Marcin Sypniewski

Motion for a resolution

Recital S b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Sb. whereas on 19 December 2024, Parliament elected a new Ombudsman, Teresa Anjinho, who took office on 27 February 2025;

Or. pl

Amendment 62

Marcin Sypniewski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Congratulates the new Ombudsman on her appointment and praises her commitment to ensuring that the EU administration upholds a citizen-oriented approach;	2. Congratulates Teresa Anjinho on her success in the competition against five other candidates for the office of Ombudsman; welcomes her intention to maintain a citizen-oriented approach while exercising political neutrality and proportionality in the selection of cases of systemic importance;

Or. pl

Amendment 63

Marcin Sypniewski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Expresses its appreciation for the constructive cooperation between the Ombudsman and Parliament, in particular its Committee on Petitions, as well as the other EU institutions;	3. Expresses its appreciation for the constructive cooperation between the Ombudsman and Parliament, in particular its Committee on Petitions, as well as the other EU institutions; thanks the former Ombudsman for raising the standards of transparency and good administration between 2013 and 2024, and for pointing out improvements to be made in the EU institutions' practices;

Or. pl

Amendment 64

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Sebastian Kruis, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	3 a. Deplores the Commission’s recurrent failure to meet transparency standards; calls on the Ombudsman to closely monitor compliance with deadlines for access to documents in order to prevent systemic maladministration;

Or. en

Amendment 65

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is extremely concerned about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances; stresses that the Commission’s significant delays constitute a major threat to human health and the environment, as companies are able to continue using such chemical substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are associated with increased risks of cancer and genetic damage, and with impaired reproductive health;	deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 66

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is extremely concerned about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances; stresses that the Commission’s significant delays constitute a major threat to human health and the environment, as companies are able to continue using such chemical substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are associated with increased risks of cancer and genetic damage, and with impaired reproductive health;	4. Notes the Commission’s delays in meeting the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions; underlines that respecting these deadlines is essential to ensure legal certainty and predictability in the EU’s decision-making process;

Or. en

Amendment 67

Paolo Inselvini

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is extremely concerned about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances; stresses that the Commission’s significant delays constitute a major threat to human health and the environment, as companies are able to continue using such chemical substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are associated with increased risks of cancer and genetic damage, and with impaired reproductive health;	4. Notes the Commission’s delays when it comes to meeting the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances; stresses that such delays risk compromising legal certainty and the protection of human health and the environment; notes, in particular, that regarding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known for their risks to health, the reduction should be achieved through a gradual and realistic approach, in order to balance protecting public health with protecting competitiveness and employment in European companies;

Or. it

Amendment 68

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is extremely concerned about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances; stresses that the Commission’s significant delays constitute a major threat to human health and the environment, as companies are able to continue using such chemical substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are associated with increased risks of cancer and genetic damage, and with impaired reproductive health;	4. Is concerned about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances;

Or. en

Amendment 69

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is extremely concerned about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances; stresses that the Commission’s significant delays constitute a major threat to human health and the environment, as companies are able to continue using such chemical substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are associated with increased risks of cancer and genetic damage, and with impaired reproductive health;	4. Is extremely concerned about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances;

Or. en

Amendment 70

Fidias Panayiotou

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is extremely concerned about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances; stresses that the Commission’s significant delays constitute a major threat to human health and the environment, as companies are able to continue using such chemical substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are associated with increased risks of cancer and genetic damage, and with impaired reproductive health;	4. Is extremely concerned about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances; Calls on the Commission to enhance transparency in the authorisation process by publishing the status of pending applications in a timely and accessible manner, to ensure effective public scrutiny and accountability stresses that the Commission’s significant delays constitute a major threat to human health and the environment, as companies are able to continue using such chemical substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are associated with increased risks of cancer and genetic damage, and with impaired reproductive health; Calls on the Commission to respect legally binding deadlines for authorisation decisions and to urgently restrict the use of hazardous substances, including PFAS;

Or. en

Amendment 71

Murielle Laurent

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is extremely concerned about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances; stresses that the Commission’s significant delays constitute a major threat to human health and the environment, as companies are able to continue using such chemical substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are associated with increased risks of cancer and genetic damage, and with impaired reproductive health;	4. Is extremely concerned about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances; stresses that the Commission’s significant delays constitute a major threat to human health and the environment, as companies are able to continue using such chemical substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are associated with increased risks of cancer and genetic damage, and with impaired reproductive health; stresses that to address the health and environmental risks posed by the PFAS the Commission should coordinate with Member States, their national and local authorities; but also with civil society, which play an essential role in this field;

Or. en

Amendment 72

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is extremely concerned about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances; stresses that the Commission’s significant delays constitute a major threat to human health and the environment, as companies are able to continue using such chemical substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are associated with increased risks of cancer and genetic damage, and with impaired reproductive health;	4. Is worried about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances; stresses that the Commission’s significant delays constitute a potential threat to human health and the environment, as companies are able to continue using such chemical substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are associated with possible increased risks of cancer and genetic damage, and with impaired reproductive health;

Or. en

Amendment 73

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Believes that the Commission must address, as a matter of priority, all of the severe shortcomings surrounding its management of risk in relation to substances of very high concern, and reject any requests for authorisation of such substances and ban their use where there is persistent uncertainty with regard to the protection of human health and the environment; is firmly convinced that the Commission should fully implement all of the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry, including a recommendation that applications for authorisation of a substance of very high concern that lack all of the necessary information be rejected to ensure that companies are not allowed to continue using these dangerous substances;	deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 74

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Believes that the Commission must address, as a matter of priority, all of the severe shortcomings surrounding its management of risk in relation to substances of very high concern, and reject any requests for authorisation of such substances and ban their use where there is persistent uncertainty with regard to the protection of human health and the environment; is firmly convinced that the Commission should fully implement all of the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry, including a recommendation that applications for authorisation of a substance of very high concern that lack all of the necessary information be rejected to ensure that companies are not allowed to continue using these dangerous substances;	5. is firmly convinced that the Commission should fully implement all of the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry;

Or. en

Amendment 75

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Believes that the Commission must address, as a matter of priority, all of the severe shortcomings surrounding its management of risk in relation to substances of very high concern, and reject any requests for authorisation of such substances and ban their use where there is persistent uncertainty with regard to the protection of human health and the environment; is firmly convinced that the Commission should fully implement all of the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry, including a recommendation that applications for authorisation of a substance of very high concern that lack all of the necessary information be rejected to ensure that companies are not allowed to continue using these dangerous substances;	5. Believes that the Commission must address, as a matter of priority, all of the severe shortcomings surrounding its management of risk in relation to substances of very high concern; recommends that the Commission implements the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry when possible;

Or. en

Amendment 76

Fidias Panayiotou

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Believes that the Commission must address, as a matter of priority, all of the severe shortcomings surrounding its management of risk in relation to substances of very high concern, and reject any requests for authorisation of such substances and ban their use where there is persistent uncertainty with regard to the protection of human health and the environment; is firmly convinced that the Commission should fully implement all of the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry, including a recommendation that applications for authorisation of a substance of very high concern that lack all of the necessary information be rejected to ensure that companies are not allowed to continue using these dangerous substances;	5. Stresses that the Commission must address, as a matter of priority, all of the severe shortcomings surrounding its management of risk in relation to substances of very high concern, and reject any requests for authorisation of such substances and ban their use where there is uncertainty with regard to the protection of human health and the environment; is firmly convinced that the Commission should fully implement all of the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry, including a recommendation that applications for authorisation of a substance of very high concern that lack all of the necessary information be rejected in accordance with the precautionary principle enshrined in Article 191(2) TFEU and as further outlined in the Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle (COM(2000) 1) to ensure that companies are not allowed to continue using these dangerous substances;

Or. en

Amendment 77

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Believes that the Commission must address, as a matter of priority, all of the severe shortcomings surrounding its management of risk in relation to substances of very high concern, and reject any requests for authorisation of such substances and ban their use where there is persistent uncertainty with regard to the protection of human health and the environment; is firmly convinced that the Commission should fully implement all of the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry, including a recommendation that applications for authorisation of a substance of very high concern that lack all of the necessary information be rejected to ensure that companies are not allowed to continue using these dangerous substances;	5. Believes that the Commission must address, as a matter of priority, all of the severe shortcomings surrounding its management of risk in relation to substances of very high concern; is firmly convinced that the Commission should fully implement all of the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry, including a recommendation that applications for authorisation of a substance of very high concern that lack all of the necessary information be rejected to ensure that companies are not allowed to continue using these dangerous substances;

Or. en

Amendment 78

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Believes that the Commission must address, as a matter of priority, all of the severe shortcomings surrounding its management of risk in relation to substances of very high concern, and reject any requests for authorisation of such substances and ban their use where there is persistent uncertainty with regard to the protection of human health and the environment; is firmly convinced that the Commission should fully implement all of the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry, including a recommendation that applications for authorisation of a substance of very high concern that lack all of the necessary information be rejected to ensure that companies are not allowed to continue using these dangerous substances;	5. Believes that the Commission must address, as a matter of priority, all of the severe shortcomings surrounding its management of risk in relation to substances of very high concern, and reject any applications for authorisation to use such substances and prohibit their use where their negative impact on human health and the environment has been scientifically proven; is firmly convinced that the Commission should fully implement all of the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry, including a recommendation that applications for authorisation of a substance of very high concern that lack all of the necessary information be rejected to ensure that companies are not allowed to continue using these dangerous substances;

Or. en

Amendment 79

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Believes that the Commission must address, as a matter of priority, all of the severe shortcomings surrounding its management of risk in relation to substances of very high concern, and reject any requests for authorisation of such substances and ban their use where there is persistent uncertainty with regard to the protection of human health and the environment; is firmly convinced that the Commission should fully implement all of the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry, including a recommendation that applications for authorisation of a substance of very high concern that lack all of the necessary information be rejected to ensure that companies are not allowed to continue using these dangerous substances;	5. Believes that the Commission must address, as a matter of priority, all of the severe shortcomings surrounding its management of risk in relation to substances of very high concern, and reject any requests for authorisation of such substances and ban their use where there is evidence that they are harmful to the human health and the environment; is firmly convinced that the Commission should fully implement all of the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry, including a recommendation that applications for authorisation of a substance of very high concern that lack all of the necessary information be rejected to ensure that companies are not allowed to continue using these dangerous substances;

Or. en

Amendment 80

Alexander Bernhuber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Strongly believes that the continued authorisation of hazardous pesticides must end immediately; stresses that the Commission must significantly improve the rules on the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides in order to favour safe non‑chemical alternatives and swiftly move towards a sustainable food system and a toxin-free environment; urges the Commission to refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified or where additional data confirming their safety is needed, given the already very harmful consequences that the use of pesticides has had for human health and the environment, in full application of the precautionary principle; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest, and to commit to putting an end to the use of all synthetic pesticides by 2035 at the latest;	deleted

Or. de

Amendment 81

Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Strongly believes that the continued authorisation of hazardous pesticides must end immediately; stresses that the Commission must significantly improve the rules on the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides in order to favour safe non-chemical alternatives and swiftly move towards a sustainable food system and a toxin-free environment; urges the Commission to refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified or where additional data confirming their safety is needed, given the already very harmful consequences that the use of pesticides has had for human health and the environment, in full application of the precautionary principle; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest, and to commit to putting an end to the use of all synthetic pesticides by 2035 at the latest;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 82

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Strongly believes that the continued authorisation of hazardous pesticides must end immediately; stresses that the Commission must significantly improve the rules on the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides in order to favour safe non-chemical alternatives and swiftly move towards a sustainable food system and a toxin-free environment; urges the Commission to refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified or where additional data confirming their safety is needed, given the already very harmful consequences that the use of pesticides has had for human health and the environment, in full application of the precautionary principle; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest, and to commit to putting an end to the use of all synthetic pesticides by 2035 at the latest;	6. urges the Commission to refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified or where additional data confirming their safety is needed; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest;

Or. en

Amendment 83

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Strongly believes that the continued authorisation of hazardous pesticides must end immediately; stresses that the Commission must significantly improve the rules on the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides in order to favour safe non-chemical alternatives and swiftly move towards a sustainable food system and a toxin-free environment; urges the Commission to refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified or where additional data confirming their safety is needed, given the already very harmful consequences that the use of pesticides has had for human health and the environment, in full application of the precautionary principle; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest, and to commit to putting an end to the use of all synthetic pesticides by 2035 at the latest;	6. Notes that any authorisation regarding pesticides should carefully balance the protection of human health and environment with the need to ensure food security and the competitiveness of the European agriculture; stresses that the Commission must assess and authorise active substances used in pesticides; calls on the Commission to refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and follows strict safeguards against conflicts of interest;

Or. en

Amendment 84

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Strongly believes that the continued authorisation of hazardous pesticides must end immediately; stresses that the Commission must significantly improve the rules on the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides in order to favour safe non‑chemical alternatives and swiftly move towards a sustainable food system and a toxin-free environment; urges the Commission to refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified or where additional data confirming their safety is needed, given the already very harmful consequences that the use of pesticides has had for human health and the environment, in full application of the precautionary principle; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest, and to commit to putting an end to the use of all synthetic pesticides by 2035 at the latest;	6. believes that the continued authorisation of hazardous pesticides must be suspended as soon as solid scientific evidence supports it; stresses that the Commission must step up the rules on the substitution of hazardous substances with safe non‑chemical alternatives, where possible and without significant economic impact on producers and consumers, with a view to establishing a toxin-free environment; calls on the Commission to ensure that the pesticide approval process is fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest,

Or. fr

Amendment 85

Pál Szekeres, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Strongly believes that the continued authorisation of hazardous pesticides must end immediately; stresses that the Commission must significantly improve the rules on the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides in order to favour safe non-chemical alternatives and swiftly move towards a sustainable food system and a toxin-free environment; urges the Commission to refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified or where additional data confirming their safety is needed, given the already very harmful consequences that the use of pesticides has had for human health and the environment, in full application of the precautionary principle; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest, and to commit to putting an end to the use of all synthetic pesticides by 2035 at the latest;	6. Strongly believes that the continued authorisation of hazardous pesticides shall be ended with a timetable based on the Member States' national competencies and current capacities; stresses that the Commission must significantly contribute to the capacity and available and as well as affordable access to the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides in order to favour safe non-chemical alternatives and swiftly move towards a sustainable food system and a toxin-free environment; urges the Commission to refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified and there are widely available and affordable substances, given the already very harmful consequences that the use of pesticides has had for human health and the environment, in full application of the precautionary principle; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest, and to commit to putting an end to the use of all synthetic pesticides by 2035 at the latest;

Or. en

Amendment 86

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Strongly believes that the continued authorisation of hazardous pesticides must end immediately; stresses that the Commission must significantly improve the rules on the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides in order to favour safe non-chemical alternatives and swiftly move towards a sustainable food system and a toxin-free environment; urges the Commission to refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified or where additional data confirming their safety is needed, given the already very harmful consequences that the use of pesticides has had for human health and the environment, in full application of the precautionary principle; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest, and to commit to putting an end to the use of all synthetic pesticides by 2035 at the latest;	6. stresses that the Commission should improve the rules on the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides in order to favour safe non-chemical alternatives and swiftly move towards a toxin-free environment; urges the Commission to refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified or where additional data confirming their safety is needed, given the already very harmful consequences that the use of pesticides has had for human health and the environment, in full application of the precautionary principle; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest, and to commit to putting an end to the use of all synthetic pesticides by 2035 at the latest;

Or. en

Amendment 87

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Strongly believes that the continued authorisation of hazardous pesticides must end immediately; stresses that the Commission must significantly improve the rules on the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides in order to favour safe non-chemical alternatives and swiftly move towards a sustainable food system and a toxin-free environment; urges the Commission to refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified or where additional data confirming their safety is needed, given the already very harmful consequences that the use of pesticides has had for human health and the environment, in full application of the precautionary principle; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest, and to commit to putting an end to the use of all synthetic pesticides by 2035 at the latest;	6. Strongly believes that the continued authorisation of hazardous pesticides must end immediately; stresses that the Commission must significantly improve the rules on the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides in order to favour safe non-chemical alternatives and swiftly move towards a sustainable food system and a toxin-free environment; urges the Commission to refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified or where additional data confirming their safety is needed, given the already very harmful consequences that the use of pesticides has had for human health and the environment, in full application of the precautionary principle; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest;

Or. en

Amendment 88

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Stresses that the EU institutions must guarantee the full transparency of, and the highest levels of citizen participation in, the EU’s decision-making process; considers it to be of the utmost importance to ensure that citizens can hold decision-makers to account, fully exercise their democratic rights and have access to all relevant information and documents, particularly those of a legislative nature, including while the legislative process is ongoing, as also stipulated in CJEU case law; emphasises that the EU institutions, agencies, bodies and offices must ensure full transparency and adhere to the highest ethical standards in their interactions with private stakeholders;	7. Stresses that the EU institutions must guarantee the full transparency of, and the highest levels of citizen participation in, the EU’s decision-making process; stresses, however, that while it is essential for the institutions to be transparent in their relations with citizens, that transparency must not undermine their political negotiations, which could be hampered by a demand for excessive transparency, leading to a substantial increase in informal meetings and thereby producing an effect opposite to that sought;

Or. fr

Amendment 89

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Stresses that the EU institutions must guarantee the full transparency of, and the highest levels of citizen participation in, the EU’s decision-making process; considers it to be of the utmost importance to ensure that citizens can hold decision-makers to account, fully exercise their democratic rights and have access to all relevant information and documents, particularly those of a legislative nature, including while the legislative process is ongoing, as also stipulated in CJEU case law; emphasises that the EU institutions, agencies, bodies and offices must ensure full transparency and adhere to the highest ethical standards in their interactions with private stakeholders;	7. Stresses that the EU institutions must guarantee the full transparency of, and the highest levels of citizen participation in, the EU’s decision-making process; considers it to be of the utmost importance to ensure that citizens can hold decision-makers to account, fully exercise their democratic rights and have access to all relevant information and documents, particularly those of a legislative nature; emphasises that the EU institutions, agencies, bodies and offices must ensure full transparency and adhere to the highest ethical standards in their interactions with private stakeholders; underlines the importance of transparency when it comes to ensuring public trust that the EU administration will use AI responsibility; proposes that the Commission proactively informs the public about the fact that a reply was prepared with the assistance of AI as well as about the nature of the AI assistance provided;

Or. en

Amendment 90

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Stresses that the EU institutions must guarantee the full transparency of, and the highest levels of citizen participation in, the EU’s decision-making process; considers it to be of the utmost importance to ensure that citizens can hold decision-makers to account, fully exercise their democratic rights and have access to all relevant information and documents, particularly those of a legislative nature, including while the legislative process is ongoing, as also stipulated in CJEU case law; emphasises that the EU institutions, agencies, bodies and offices must ensure full transparency and adhere to the highest ethical standards in their interactions with private stakeholders;	7. Stresses that the EU institutions must guarantee the full transparency of, and the highest levels of citizen participation in, the EU’s decision-making process; considers it to be of the utmost importance to ensure that citizens can hold decision-makers to account, fully exercise their democratic rights and have access to all relevant information and documents, particularly those of a legislative nature; emphasises that the EU institutions, agencies, bodies and offices must ensure full transparency;

Or. en

Amendment 91

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Stresses that the EU institutions must guarantee the full transparency of, and the highest levels of citizen participation in, the EU’s decision-making process; considers it to be of the utmost importance to ensure that citizens can hold decision-makers to account, fully exercise their democratic rights and have access to all relevant information and documents, particularly those of a legislative nature, including while the legislative process is ongoing, as also stipulated in CJEU case law; emphasises that the EU institutions, agencies, bodies and offices must ensure full transparency and adhere to the highest ethical standards in their interactions with private stakeholders;	7. Stresses that the EU institutions must guarantee transparency of, and a reasonable level of citizen participation in the EU’s decision-making process; considers it to be of the utmost importance to ensure that citizens can hold decision-makers to account, fully exercise their democratic rights and have access to all relevant information and documents, particularly those of a legislative nature, including while the legislative process is ongoing, as also stipulated in CJEU case law; emphasises that the EU institutions, agencies, bodies and offices must ensure full transparency and adhere to the highest ethical standards in their interactions with private stakeholders;

Or. en

Amendment 92

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Stresses that the EU institutions must guarantee the full transparency of, and the highest levels of citizen participation in, the EU’s decision-making process; considers it to be of the utmost importance to ensure that citizens can hold decision-makers to account, fully exercise their democratic rights and have access to all relevant information and documents, particularly those of a legislative nature, including while the legislative process is ongoing, as also stipulated in CJEU case law; emphasises that the EU institutions, agencies, bodies and offices must ensure full transparency and adhere to the highest ethical standards in their interactions with private stakeholders;	7. Stresses that the EU institutions must guarantee the transparency of, and the highest levels of citizen participation in, the EU’s decision-making process; considers it to be of the utmost importance to ensure that citizens can hold decision-makers to account, fully exercise their democratic rights and have access to all relevant information and documents, particularly those of a legislative nature, including while the legislative process is ongoing, as also stipulated in CJEU case law; emphasises that the EU institutions, agencies, bodies and offices must ensure transparency and adhere to the highest ethical standards in their interactions with private stakeholders;

Or. en

Amendment 93

Maria Zacharia

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Stresses that the EU institutions must guarantee the full transparency of, and the highest levels of citizen participation in, the EU’s decision-making process; considers it to be of the utmost importance to ensure that citizens can hold decision-makers to account, fully exercise their democratic rights and have access to all relevant information and documents, particularly those of a legislative nature, including while the legislative process is ongoing, as also stipulated in CJEU case law; emphasises that the EU institutions, agencies, bodies and offices must ensure full transparency and adhere to the highest ethical standards in their interactions with private stakeholders;	7. Stresses that the EU institutions must guarantee the full transparency of, and the highest levels of citizen participation in, the EU’s decision-making process; considers it to be of the utmost importance to ensure that citizens can hold decision-makers to account, fully exercise their democratic rights and have access to all relevant information and documents, particularly those of a legislative nature, including while the legislative process is ongoing, as also stipulated in CJEU case law; emphasises that access to documents must be prompt and without unnecessary delays, that procedures for citizens must be simplified for their convenience, and underlines that the EU institutions, agencies, bodies and offices must ensure full transparency and adhere to the highest ethical standards in their interactions with private stakeholders;

Or. el

Amendment 94

Marcin Sypniewski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7a. Warns that inundating the public with a mass of secondary documents and analyses, while at the same time denying access to documents of key importance, constitutes a distortion of the principle of transparency; asserts that transparency must mean, above all, providing access to documents that are of key importance for the public interest;

Or. pl

Amendment 95

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Criticises the lack of transparency surrounding the identity and nature of, and the benefits gained by, private companies in return for sponsoring informal meetings of Ministers, as well as cultural and social events, organised by the Council of the EU, and regrets that such sponsors are even authorised to use the logo of the Presidency of the Council for commercial purposes; believes that this practice must be stopped immediately, in compliance, inter alia, with Parliament’s specific request to the Council in this regard, namely to refrain from obtaining any corporate sponsorship and to adopt the most stringent rules to prevent conflicts of interest, so as to safeguard the reputation and integrity of both the Council and the Union as a whole;	deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 96

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Criticises the lack of transparency surrounding the identity and nature of, and the benefits gained by, private companies in return for sponsoring informal meetings of Ministers, as well as cultural and social events, organised by the Council of the EU, and regrets that such sponsors are even authorised to use the logo of the Presidency of the Council for commercial purposes; believes that this practice must be stopped immediately, in compliance, inter alia, with Parliament’s specific request to the Council in this regard, namely to refrain from obtaining any corporate sponsorship and to adopt the most stringent rules to prevent conflicts of interest, so as to safeguard the reputation and integrity of both the Council and the Union as a whole;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 97

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Criticises the lack of transparency surrounding the identity and nature of, and the benefits gained by, private companies in return for sponsoring informal meetings of Ministers, as well as cultural and social events, organised by the Council of the EU, and regrets that such sponsors are even authorised to use the logo of the Presidency of the Council for commercial purposes; believes that this practice must be stopped immediately, in compliance, inter alia, with Parliament’s specific request to the Council in this regard, namely to refrain from obtaining any corporate sponsorship and to adopt the most stringent rules to prevent conflicts of interest, so as to safeguard the reputation and integrity of both the Council and the Union as a whole;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 98

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Criticises the lack of transparency surrounding the identity and nature of, and the benefits gained by, private companies in return for sponsoring informal meetings of Ministers, as well as cultural and social events, organised by the Council of the EU, and regrets that such sponsors are even authorised to use the logo of the Presidency of the Council for commercial purposes; believes that this practice must be stopped immediately, in compliance, inter alia, with Parliament’s specific request to the Council in this regard, namely to refrain from obtaining any corporate sponsorship and to adopt the most stringent rules to prevent conflicts of interest, so as to safeguard the reputation and integrity of both the Council and the Union as a whole;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 99

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Highlights the paramount importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups, in particular the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, given the high social and environmental stakes involved with regard to energy policies; strongly regrets that the Commission decided to completely exclude civil society representatives from this Group, giving fossil fuel industries privileged and unmonitored access to EU policymakers and increasing their influence on EU decision-making, thereby undermining citizens’ trust, public scrutiny and transparency;	deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 100

Mireia Borrás Pabón, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Highlights the paramount importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups, in particular the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, given the high social and environmental stakes involved with regard to energy policies; strongly regrets that the Commission decided to completely exclude civil society representatives from this Group, giving fossil fuel industries privileged and unmonitored access to EU policymakers and increasing their influence on EU decision-making, thereby undermining citizens’ trust, public scrutiny and transparency;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 101

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Highlights the paramount importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups, in particular the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, given the high social and environmental stakes involved with regard to energy policies; strongly regrets that the Commission decided to completely exclude civil society representatives from this Group, giving fossil fuel industries privileged and unmonitored access to EU policymakers and increasing their influence on EU decision-making, thereby undermining citizens’ trust, public scrutiny and transparency;	9. Highlights the importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups; Stresses in this regard that environmental urgency should not override democratic scrutiny;

Or. en

Amendment 102

Murielle Laurent

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Highlights the paramount importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups, in particular the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, given the high social and environmental stakes involved with regard to energy policies; strongly regrets that the Commission decided to completely exclude civil society representatives from this Group, giving fossil fuel industries privileged and unmonitored access to EU policymakers and increasing their influence on EU decision-making, thereby undermining citizens’ trust, public scrutiny and transparency;	9. Highlights the paramount importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in increasing transparency and helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s more than one thousand expert groups which provide various specialised advice to the Commission, in particular the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, given the high social and environmental stakes involved with regard to energy policies; strongly regrets that the Commission decided to completely exclude civil society representatives from this Group, giving fossil fuel industries privileged and unmonitored access to EU policymakers and increasing their influence on EU decision-making, thereby undermining citizens’ trust, public scrutiny and transparency; is of the opinion that the European public should be informed of the profile of all members of the expert groups and of the content of their deliberations;

Or. en

Amendment 103

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Sebastian Kruis, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Highlights the paramount importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups, in particular the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, given the high social and environmental stakes involved with regard to energy policies; strongly regrets that the Commission decided to completely exclude civil society representatives from this Group, giving fossil fuel industries privileged and unmonitored access to EU policymakers and increasing their influence on EU decision-making, thereby undermining citizens’ trust, public scrutiny and transparency;	9. Stresses the crucial importance of the Ombudsman's activities in helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission's expert groups;

Or. en

Amendment 104

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Highlights the paramount importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups, in particular the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, given the high social and environmental stakes involved with regard to energy policies; strongly regrets that the Commission decided to completely exclude civil society representatives from this Group, giving fossil fuel industries privileged and unmonitored access to EU policymakers and increasing their influence on EU decision-making, thereby undermining citizens’ trust, public scrutiny and transparency;	9. Highlights the paramount importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups, in particular the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, given the high social and environmental stakes involved with regard to energy policies;

Or. en

Amendment 105

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Highlights the paramount importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups, in particular the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, given the high social and environmental stakes involved with regard to energy policies; strongly regrets that the Commission decided to completely exclude civil society representatives from this Group, giving fossil fuel industries privileged and unmonitored access to EU policymakers and increasing their influence on EU decision-making, thereby undermining citizens’ trust, public scrutiny and transparency;	9. Highlights the paramount importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups, in particular the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, given the high social and environmental stakes involved with regard to energy policies;

Or. en

Amendment 106

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Highlights the paramount importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups, in particular the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, given the high social and environmental stakes involved with regard to energy policies; strongly regrets that the Commission decided to completely exclude civil society representatives from this Group, giving fossil fuel industries privileged and unmonitored access to EU policymakers and increasing their influence on EU decision-making, thereby undermining citizens’ trust, public scrutiny and transparency;	9. Highlights the importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups, in particular the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, given the high social and environmental stakes involved with regard to energy policies; strongly regrets that the Commission decided to completely exclude civil society representatives from this Group, raising the risk of giving fossil fuel industries privileged and unmonitored access to EU policymakers and of increasing their influence on EU decision-making, thereby undermining citizens’ trust, public scrutiny and transparency;

Or. en

Amendment 107

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Emphasises that, in a new report of May 2025 to the UN General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change called for a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying, advertising and sponsorship, and for the public to be adequately informed about the fossil fuel industry’s deliberate contributions to the planetary crises and about the human rights impacts of their actions over decades;	deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 108

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Emphasises that, in a new report of May 2025 to the UN General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change called for a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying, advertising and sponsorship, and for the public to be adequately informed about the fossil fuel industry’s deliberate contributions to the planetary crises and about the human rights impacts of their actions over decades;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 109

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Emphasises that, in a new report of May 2025 to the UN General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change called for a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying, advertising and sponsorship, and for the public to be adequately informed about the fossil fuel industry’s deliberate contributions to the planetary crises and about the human rights impacts of their actions over decades;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 110

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Emphasises that, in a new report of May 2025 to the UN General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change called for a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying, advertising and sponsorship, and for the public to be adequately informed about the fossil fuel industry’s deliberate contributions to the planetary crises and about the human rights impacts of their actions over decades;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 111

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Emphasises that, in a new report of May 2025 to the UN General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change called for a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying, advertising and sponsorship, and for the public to be adequately informed about the fossil fuel industry’s deliberate contributions to the planetary crises and about the human rights impacts of their actions over decades;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 112

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Emphasises that, in a new report of May 2025 to the UN General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change called for a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying, advertising and sponsorship, and for the public to be adequately informed about the fossil fuel industry’s deliberate contributions to the planetary crises and about the human rights impacts of their actions over decades;	10. Emphasises that, in a new report of May 2025 to the UN General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change highlighted the need for greater transparency regarding the activities of the fossil fuel industry;

Or. en

Amendment 113

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Supports the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving the RSB; considers it essential for RSB members to assess both the actual risk of undue influence and the public perception of their independence when choosing their outreach activities, and to avoid holding meetings with individual interest representatives; calls on the Commission to ensure that the composition of the RSB fully reflects the diversity of expertise specified in its related communication, i.e. the three pillars of sustainable development, namely macro- and microeconomics, social policy and environment policy, and to clearly describe the criteria it applies in selecting RSB members, given the key role played by the RSB and the significant influence of its opinions on Commission decision-making in the area of EU lawmaking;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 114

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Supports the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving the RSB; considers it essential for RSB members to assess both the actual risk of undue influence and the public perception of their independence when choosing their outreach activities, and to avoid holding meetings with individual interest representatives; calls on the Commission to ensure that the composition of the RSB fully reflects the diversity of expertise specified in its related communication, i.e. the three pillars of sustainable development, namely macro- and microeconomics, social policy and environment policy, and to clearly describe the criteria it applies in selecting RSB members, given the key role played by the RSB and the significant influence of its opinions on Commission decision-making in the area of EU lawmaking;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 115

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Supports the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving the RSB; considers it essential for RSB members to assess both the actual risk of undue influence and the public perception of their independence when choosing their outreach activities, and to avoid holding meetings with individual interest representatives; calls on the Commission to ensure that the composition of the RSB fully reflects the diversity of expertise specified in its related communication, i.e. the three pillars of sustainable development, namely macro- and microeconomics, social policy and environment policy, and to clearly describe the criteria it applies in selecting RSB members, given the key role played by the RSB and the significant influence of its opinions on Commission decision-making in the area of EU lawmaking;	11. Notes the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving the RSB; calls on the Commission to ensure that the composition of the RSB fully reflects the diversity of expertise specified in its related communication;

Or. fr

Amendment 116

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. Commends the Ombudsman’s investigations into how the Commission prepared a proposal to amend legislation related to the common agricultural policy; deplores the fact that the Commission, in preparing the proposal concerned, did not carry out an impact assessment, chose not to consult environmental organisations and failed to appropriately consult the general public; strongly regrets the Commission’s decision to weaken the CAP’s environmental requirements without comprehensively examining the available evidence to ensure that the new rules did not undermine the EU’s environmental and climate goals and the sustainability of EU agriculture in the long run, thus violating the principle of evidence-based decision-making, as laid down in its Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, as well as in case-law;	12. Disagrees with the concerns of the Ombudsman, which formed the basis for the investigations conducted against the Commission into the manner in which it prepared its proposal to amend the rules governing the common agricultural policy; notes with satisfaction that, in preparing this proposal, the Commission consulted agricultural organisations and took their views into account; expresses its full support for the Commission's decision to relax the environmental requirements of the CAP and hopes that the new rules will lead to a revision of the EU's unrealistic long-term climate and agricultural policy objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 117

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. Commends the Ombudsman’s investigations into how the Commission prepared a proposal to amend legislation related to the common agricultural policy; deplores the fact that the Commission, in preparing the proposal concerned, did not carry out an impact assessment, chose not to consult environmental organisations and failed to appropriately consult the general public; strongly regrets the Commission’s decision to weaken the CAP’s environmental requirements without comprehensively examining the available evidence to ensure that the new rules did not undermine the EU’s environmental and climate goals and the sustainability of EU agriculture in the long run, thus violating the principle of evidence-based decision-making, as laid down in its Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, as well as in case-law;	12. Commends the Ombudsman’s investigations into how the Commission prepared a proposal to amend legislation related to the Common Agricultural Policy; deplores that the Commission, in preparing the proposal, did not carry out an impact assessment and failed to appropriately consult the general public; strongly regrets the Commission’s decision to weaken the CAP’s budgetary allocation, fearing it could harm EU agriculture in the long run; recalls that agriculture is a cornerstone of the European Union and stresses that the Commission should provide full support (financial and otherwise) to farmers;

Or. en

Amendment 118

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. Commends the Ombudsman’s investigations into how the Commission prepared a proposal to amend legislation related to the common agricultural policy; deplores the fact that the Commission, in preparing the proposal concerned, did not carry out an impact assessment, chose not to consult environmental organisations and failed to appropriately consult the general public; strongly regrets the Commission’s decision to weaken the CAP’s environmental requirements without comprehensively examining the available evidence to ensure that the new rules did not undermine the EU’s environmental and climate goals and the sustainability of EU agriculture in the long run, thus violating the principle of evidence-based decision-making, as laid down in its Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, as well as in case-law;	12. Commends the Ombudsman’s ongoing inquiry into how the Commission prepared a proposal to amend legislation related to the common agricultural policy; recalls that concerns have been expressed about the absence of an impact assessment, the limited consultation of stakeholders, and the potential implications for environmental and climate objectives; emphasises the need to uphold the principles of evidence-based decision-making, as enshrined in the Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, while awaiting the outcome of the Ombudsman’s inquiry;

Or. en

Amendment 119

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. Commends the Ombudsman’s investigations into how the Commission prepared a proposal to amend legislation related to the common agricultural policy; deplores the fact that the Commission, in preparing the proposal concerned, did not carry out an impact assessment, chose not to consult environmental organisations and failed to appropriately consult the general public; strongly regrets the Commission’s decision to weaken the CAP’s environmental requirements without comprehensively examining the available evidence to ensure that the new rules did not undermine the EU’s environmental and climate goals and the sustainability of EU agriculture in the long run, thus violating the principle of evidence-based decision-making, as laid down in its Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, as well as in case-law;	12. Notes the Ombudsman’s investigations into how the Commission prepared a proposal to amend legislation related to the common agricultural policy without an impact assessment;

Or. en

Amendment 120

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. Commends the Ombudsman’s investigations into how the Commission prepared a proposal to amend legislation related to the common agricultural policy; deplores the fact that the Commission, in preparing the proposal concerned, did not carry out an impact assessment, chose not to consult environmental organisations and failed to appropriately consult the general public; strongly regrets the Commission’s decision to weaken the CAP’s environmental requirements without comprehensively examining the available evidence to ensure that the new rules did not undermine the EU’s environmental and climate goals and the sustainability of EU agriculture in the long run, thus violating the principle of evidence-based decision-making, as laid down in its Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, as well as in case-law;	12. Commends the Ombudsman’s investigations into how the Commission prepared a proposal to amend legislation related to the common agricultural policy;

Or. en

Amendment 121

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. Commends the Ombudsman’s investigations into how the Commission prepared a proposal to amend legislation related to the common agricultural policy; deplores the fact that the Commission, in preparing the proposal concerned, did not carry out an impact assessment, chose not to consult environmental organisations and failed to appropriately consult the general public; strongly regrets the Commission’s decision to weaken the CAP’s environmental requirements without comprehensively examining the available evidence to ensure that the new rules did not undermine the EU’s environmental and climate goals and the sustainability of EU agriculture in the long run, thus violating the principle of evidence-based decision-making, as laid down in its Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, as well as in case-law;	12. Notes the Ombudsman’s investigations into how the Commission prepared a proposal to amend legislation related to the common agricultural policy; deplores the fact that the Commission, in preparing the proposal concerned, did not carry out an impact assessment, chose not to consult environmental organisations and failed to appropriately consult the general public, particularly farmers;

Or. fr

Amendment 122

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	12 a. Supports the Ombudsman’s call for the Commission to adopt a voluntary code of conduct for non–high-risk AI systems to ensure alignment with good administration principles; stresses the importance of providing adequate training to public officials responsible for human oversight of AI, to properly assess risks and verify AI-generated results; encourages the Commission to increase transparency by clearly communicating information on future AI projects and to hold public consultations on the development of new AI tools;

Or. en

Amendment 123

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Sebastian Kruis, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Expresses its appreciation for the Ombudsman’s outstanding work in urging the Commission to guarantee the full and meaningful inclusion of all social and environmental stakeholders in its decision-making process, and in helping to prevent the decision-making process from being unduly influenced by industry;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 124

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Expresses its appreciation for the Ombudsman’s outstanding work in urging the Commission to guarantee the full and meaningful inclusion of all social and environmental stakeholders in its decision-making process, and in helping to prevent the decision-making process from being unduly influenced by industry;	13. Expresses its appreciation for the Ombudsman’s outstanding work in urging the Commission to guarantee the full and meaningful inclusion of all stakeholders in its decision-making process, and in helping to prevent the decision-making process from being unduly influenced by environmental NGOs; Request the Ombudsman to continue its work in this area and to ensure that consultations do not disproportionately favor large, well-funded NGOs, particularly environmental ones, over small businesses, farmers, or individual citizens;

Or. en

Amendment 125

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Expresses its appreciation for the Ombudsman’s outstanding work in urging the Commission to guarantee the full and meaningful inclusion of all social and environmental stakeholders in its decision-making process, and in helping to prevent the decision-making process from being unduly influenced by industry;	13. Expresses its appreciation for the Ombudsman’s work in urging the Commission to guarantee the participation of all social and environmental stakeholders in its decision-making process;

Or. fr

Amendment 126

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Expresses its appreciation for the Ombudsman’s outstanding work in urging the Commission to guarantee the full and meaningful inclusion of all social and environmental stakeholders in its decision-making process, and in helping to prevent the decision-making process from being unduly influenced by industry;	13. Expresses its appreciation for the Ombudsman’s outstanding work in urging the Commission to guarantee the inclusion of stakeholders in its decision-making process, and in helping to prevent the decision-making process from being unduly influenced by industry;

Or. en

Amendment 127

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Expresses its appreciation for the Ombudsman’s outstanding work in urging the Commission to guarantee the full and meaningful inclusion of all social and environmental stakeholders in its decision-making process, and in helping to prevent the decision-making process from being unduly influenced by industry;	13. Expresses its appreciation for the Ombudsman’s outstanding work in urging the Commission to guarantee the meaningful inclusion of social and environmental stakeholders in its decision-making process, and in helping to prevent the decision-making process from being disproportionately influenced by industry;

Or. en

Amendment 128

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13 a. Is concerned that the European Commission has financed environmental NGOs through the LIFE programme to carry out lobbying activities directed at Members of the European Parliament and other EU decision-makers in favour of the Green Deal, which undermines the principle of loyal cooperation and results in EU funds, and thus taxpayers’ money, being used for lobbying within the Union’s own institutions; believes that the Ombudsman should cooperate with CONT Scrutiny Working Group (SWG), demand greater disclosure of NGO funding sources, especially where they influence EU policy through consultations or advisory roles and simultaneously launch its own investigation into the matter;

Or. en

Amendment 129

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Sebastian Kruis, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13 a. Calls on the Ombudsman to examine the Commission’s practice of financing environmental NGOs which subsequently lobby the European Parliament and the Commission for further green policies; stresses that such practices risk creating conflicts of interest, distort the democratic process, and undermine the legitimacy of EU decision-making;

Or. en

Amendment 130

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Considers it essential that the Commission fully and consistently implement the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving its handling of potential conflicts of interest involving its Commissioners, namely to ensure that any decision-making process supervised directly or indirectly by the Commissioner(s) concerned is suspended until a final decision is taken on the existence of a conflict of interest, and to inform the relevant departments of the allegation in a timely manner so that they can start reviewing or suspend any relevant ongoing decision-making process at the earliest possible opportunity;	deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 131

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Considers it essential that the Commission fully and consistently implement the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving its handling of potential conflicts of interest involving its Commissioners, namely to ensure that any decision-making process supervised directly or indirectly by the Commissioner(s) concerned is suspended until a final decision is taken on the existence of a conflict of interest, and to inform the relevant departments of the allegation in a timely manner so that they can start reviewing or suspend any relevant ongoing decision-making process at the earliest possible opportunity;	14. Considers it essential that the Commission implements the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving its handling of potential conflicts of interest involving its Commissioners; stresses that this is particularly relevant in light of the cases concerning Vice-President Teresa Ribera, including the controversy linked to her husband’s position in Spain’s financial regulatory authority and her past involvement in the approval of environmental projects such as the Castor gas storage facility; calls on the Commission to ensure that any decision-making process supervised directly or indirectly by the Commissioner(s) concerned is evaluated and review to avoid any conflict of interest;

Or. en

Amendment 132

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Considers it essential that the Commission fully and consistently implement the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving its handling of potential conflicts of interest involving its Commissioners, namely to ensure that any decision-making process supervised directly or indirectly by the Commissioner(s) concerned is suspended until a final decision is taken on the existence of a conflict of interest, and to inform the relevant departments of the allegation in a timely manner so that they can start reviewing or suspend any relevant ongoing decision-making process at the earliest possible opportunity;	14. Considers it essential that the Commission fully and consistently implement the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving conflicts of interest involving its Commissioners, including that any decision-making process potentially affected by a conflict of interest has to be carefully reviewed;

Or. en

Amendment 133

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Considers it essential that the Commission fully and consistently implement the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving its handling of potential conflicts of interest involving its Commissioners, namely to ensure that any decision-making process supervised directly or indirectly by the Commissioner(s) concerned is suspended until a final decision is taken on the existence of a conflict of interest, and to inform the relevant departments of the allegation in a timely manner so that they can start reviewing or suspend any relevant ongoing decision-making process at the earliest possible opportunity;	14. Considers it essential that the Commission fully and consistently implement the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving its handling of potential conflicts of interest involving its Commissioners;

Or. en

Amendment 134

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Considers it essential that the Commission fully and consistently implement the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving its handling of potential conflicts of interest involving its Commissioners, namely to ensure that any decision-making process supervised directly or indirectly by the Commissioner(s) concerned is suspended until a final decision is taken on the existence of a conflict of interest, and to inform the relevant departments of the allegation in a timely manner so that they can start reviewing or suspend any relevant ongoing decision-making process at the earliest possible opportunity;	14. Considers it essential that the Commission takes into consideration the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving its handling of potential conflicts of interest involving its Commissioners, namely to ensure that any decision-making process supervised directly or indirectly by the Commissioner(s) concerned is suspended until a final decision is taken on the existence of a conflict of interest, and to inform the relevant departments of the allegation in a timely manner so that they can start reviewing or suspend any relevant ongoing decision-making process at the earliest possible opportunity;

Or. en

Amendment 135

Murielle Laurent

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14 a. Appreciates the Ombudsman’s work in relation to revolving doors policy, cooling-off periods and potential conflicts of interest in cases of former Commissioners or former senior staff of EU institutions or agencies taking up new jobs in the private sector; welcomes the Ombudsman’s recommendations for the Commission to publish all future opinions by the Independent Ethics Committee concerning activities related to the former Commissioner’s portfolio; notes the Ombudsman’s revolving doors inquiry regarding two senior staff of Europol in which the Ombudsman concluded that Europol’s way of dealing with the move of one staff member to the private sector amounted to maladministration; encourages the Ombudsman to continue focusing on issues of Ethics and Transparency in all EU institutions, bodies and agencies, and in particular to follow up on the Europol case to ensure that its internal procedures are revised in accordance with Ombudsman’s findings and recommendations;

Or. en

Amendment 136

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Underlines the fact that public access to the documents held by EU institutions is a fundamental right set out in the EU Treaties, and plays a crucial role in ensuring that the EU institutions operate in a transparent manner, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of, and public trust in, the EU; expects the Commission to significantly improve its handling of requests for public access to documents, including through the timely implementation of all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, thus demonstrating in practice that transparency is the governing rule and a fundamental priority; considers that if the Commission’s significant delays in processing requests for public access to documents persist, it will be necessary to bring an action against it before the CJEU on the grounds of infringement of the Treaties, including Article 15(3) TFEU on the right of EU citizens and residents to access documents;	15. Underlines the fact that public access to the documents held by EU institutions is a fundamental right set out in the EU Treaties, and plays a crucial role in ensuring that the EU institutions operate in a transparent manner, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of, and public trust in, the EU, including through the timely implementation of all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, thus demonstrating in practice that transparency is the governing rule and a fundamental priority; calls on the Commission to improve the way it handles such requests, to deal with its systemic delays, including through the use of digital tools, simplified procedures, and ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises, startups and civil society organisations have timely access to information; considers that if the Commission’s significant delays in processing requests for public access to documents persist, it will be necessary to bring an action against it before the CJEU on the grounds of infringement of the Treaties, including Article 15(3) TFEU on the right of EU citizens and residents to access documents; underlines that citizens’ right to public access to information applies to written physical and electronic documents, as well as to audio and audiovisual recordings related to policies, activities and decisions of the EU institutions, and recalls that work-related text messages and instant messages are considered ‘documents’ under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;

Or. en

Amendment 137

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Underlines the fact that public access to the documents held by EU institutions is a fundamental right set out in the EU Treaties, and plays a crucial role in ensuring that the EU institutions operate in a transparent manner, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of, and public trust in, the EU; expects the Commission to significantly improve its handling of requests for public access to documents, including through the timely implementation of all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, thus demonstrating in practice that transparency is the governing rule and a fundamental priority; considers that if the Commission’s significant delays in processing requests for public access to documents persist, it will be necessary to bring an action against it before the CJEU on the grounds of infringement of the Treaties, including Article 15(3) TFEU on the right of EU citizens and residents to access documents;	15. Underlines the fact that public access to the documents held by EU institutions is a fundamental right set out in the EU Treaties, and plays a crucial role in ensuring that the EU institutions operate in a transparent manner, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of, and public trust in, the EU; expects the Commission to significantly improve its handling of requests for public access to documents thus demonstrating in practice that transparency is the governing rule and a fundamental priority;

Or. en

Amendment 138

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Underlines the fact that public access to the documents held by EU institutions is a fundamental right set out in the EU Treaties, and plays a crucial role in ensuring that the EU institutions operate in a transparent manner, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of, and public trust in, the EU; expects the Commission to significantly improve its handling of requests for public access to documents, including through the timely implementation of all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, thus demonstrating in practice that transparency is the governing rule and a fundamental priority; considers that if the Commission’s significant delays in processing requests for public access to documents persist, it will be necessary to bring an action against it before the CJEU on the grounds of infringement of the Treaties, including Article 15(3) TFEU on the right of EU citizens and residents to access documents;	15. Underlines the fact that public access to the documents held by EU institutions is a fundamental right set out in the EU Treaties, and plays a crucial role in ensuring that the EU institutions operate in a transparent manner, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of, and public trust in, the EU; expects the Commission to significantly improve its handling of requests for public access to documents, including through the timely implementation of all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, thus demonstrating in practice that transparency is the governing rule and a fundamental priority;

Or. en

Amendment 139

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Underlines the fact that public access to the documents held by EU institutions is a fundamental right set out in the EU Treaties, and plays a crucial role in ensuring that the EU institutions operate in a transparent manner, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of, and public trust in, the EU; expects the Commission to significantly improve its handling of requests for public access to documents, including through the timely implementation of all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, thus demonstrating in practice that transparency is the governing rule and a fundamental priority; considers that if the Commission’s significant delays in processing requests for public access to documents persist, it will be necessary to bring an action against it before the CJEU on the grounds of infringement of the Treaties, including Article 15(3) TFEU on the right of EU citizens and residents to access documents;	15. Underlines the fact that public access to the documents held by EU institutions is a fundamental right set out in the EU Treaties, and plays a crucial role in ensuring that the EU institutions operate in a transparent manner, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of, and public trust in, the EU; expects the Commission to significantly improve its handling of requests for public access to documents, including through the timely implementation of all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, thus demonstrating in practice that transparency is the governing rule and a fundamental priority;

Or. en

Amendment 140

Marcin Sypniewski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15a. Points to the phenomenon of false transparency, which consists in the publication of an excessive amount of material of little or moderate importance while delaying or blocking access to key documents; calls on the Commission to prioritise the disclosure of documents of key importance to citizens, such as those concerning large public contracts or health security;

Or. pl

Amendment 141

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. Regrets that, in many instances, the Council and the Commission have refused to disclose legislative documents, using vague, abstract, and unsubstantiated arguments or relying on reasoning already dismissed by the CJEU; appreciates the Ombudsman’s key work in this area to ensure that the EU institutions concerned promptly disclose legislative documents, and stresses that a refusal to grant public access to documents can only occur in truly exceptional circumstances;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 142

Marcin Sypniewski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. Regrets that, in many instances, the Council and the Commission have refused to disclose legislative documents, using vague, abstract, and unsubstantiated arguments or relying on reasoning already dismissed by the CJEU; appreciates the Ombudsman’s key work in this area to ensure that the EU institutions concerned promptly disclose legislative documents, and stresses that a refusal to grant public access to documents can only occur in truly exceptional circumstances;	16. Regrets that, in many instances, the Council and the Commission have refused to disclose legislative documents, using vague, abstract, and unsubstantiated arguments or relying on reasoning already dismissed by the CJEU; appreciates the Ombudsman’s key work in this area to ensure that the EU institutions concerned promptly disclose legislative documents, and stresses that a refusal to grant public access to documents can only occur in truly exceptional circumstances; emphasises that false transparency – the proliferation of secondary and irrelevant documents – cannot be used as a pretext for concealing essential information that would allow citizens to accurately evaluate the institutions' activities;

Or. pl

Amendment 143

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. Regrets that, in many instances, the Council and the Commission have refused to disclose legislative documents, using vague, abstract, and unsubstantiated arguments or relying on reasoning already dismissed by the CJEU; appreciates the Ombudsman’s key work in this area to ensure that the EU institutions concerned promptly disclose legislative documents, and stresses that a refusal to grant public access to documents can only occur in truly exceptional circumstances;	16. Regrets that, in many instances, the Council and the Commission have refused to disclose legislative documents, relying on reasoning already dismissed by the CJEU; appreciates the Ombudsman’s key work in this area to ensure that the EU institutions concerned promptly disclose legislative documents, and stresses that a refusal to grant public access to documents can only occur in truly exceptional circumstances;

Or. en

Amendment 144

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	16 a. Recalls the Ombudsman’s November 2024 decision concerning the Commission’s refusal to grant public access to documents relating to an official visit of the President of the Commission; regrets that the Commission continues to disregard transparency obligations; calls on the Commission to fully implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations and ensure timely disclosure of documents concerning the activities of its President otherwise the right of EU citizens to access documents could be harmed;

Or. en

Amendment 145

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	16 a. Stresses the need for EU institutions to ensure that the use of artificial intelligence and automated decision-making tools in administrative procedures complies with the principles of transparency, accountability and fundamental rights; calls on the Ombudsman to continue monitoring developments in this field;

Or. en

Amendment 146

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	16 c. Notes with concern the deficiencies identified by the Ombudsman in the functioning of the EPSO and regrets that such shortcomings continue to persist; calls on EPSO to take all necessary measures to improve the transparency, efficiency and fairness of its recruitment procedures;

Or. en

Amendment 147

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Sebastian Kruis, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
17. Underlines that Frontex must fully comply with fundamental rights in all of its activities, including in its direct or indirect engagement in search and rescue operations, and fully and consistently comply with relevant international human rights law; stresses that under the applicable EU and international legal framework Member States are obliged to render assistance to any vessel or person in distress at sea, regardless of the nationality or status of the person or the circumstances in which that person is found;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 148

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
17. Underlines that Frontex must fully comply with fundamental rights in all of its activities, including in its direct or indirect engagement in search and rescue operations, and fully and consistently comply with relevant international human rights law; stresses that under the applicable EU and international legal framework Member States are obliged to render assistance to any vessel or person in distress at sea, regardless of the nationality or status of the person or the circumstances in which that person is found;	17. Underlines that the primary task for which Frontex has been established is the effective protection of the borders of the European Union and the security of its citizens by coordinating and supporting the management of the EU's external borders and preventing illegal immigration and cross-border crime; Underlines that Frontex fully complies with fundamental rights in all of its activities, including in its direct or indirect engagement in search and rescue operations, and fully and consistently comply with relevant international human rights law; highlights in this regard that in 2024 only 14 inquiries, or 3.4 % were related to the activities of Frontex;

Or. en

Amendment 149

Maria Zacharia

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
17. Underlines that Frontex must fully comply with fundamental rights in all of its activities, including in its direct or indirect engagement in search and rescue operations, and fully and consistently comply with relevant international human rights law; stresses that under the applicable EU and international legal framework Member States are obliged to render assistance to any vessel or person in distress at sea, regardless of the nationality or status of the person or the circumstances in which that person is found;	17. Underlines that Frontex must fully comply with fundamental rights in all of its activities, including in its direct or indirect engagement in search and rescue operations, and fully and consistently comply with relevant international human rights law; stresses that under the applicable EU and international legal framework Member States are obliged to render assistance to any vessel or person in distress at sea, regardless of the nationality or status of the person or the circumstances in which that person is found; notes that according to the European Ombudsman’s 2024 inquiry, no effective measures have yet been taken to prevent the recurrence of incidents such as the Adriana shipwreck, in which more than 600 people died, and underlines the need for an immediate response to instances of distress at sea, the involvement of fundamental rights monitors in all relevant decisions, in order to fully ensure compliance with fundamental rights and to enhance coordination and cooperation between Member States;

Or. el

Amendment 150

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
17. Underlines that Frontex must fully comply with fundamental rights in all of its activities, including in its direct or indirect engagement in search and rescue operations, and fully and consistently comply with relevant international human rights law; stresses that under the applicable EU and international legal framework Member States are obliged to render assistance to any vessel or person in distress at sea, regardless of the nationality or status of the person or the circumstances in which that person is found;	17. Stresses that, under the applicable EU and international legal framework, Member States are obliged to render assistance to any vessel or person in distress at sea, regardless of the nationality or status of the person or the circumstances in which that person is found; underlines that Frontex, within the limits of its mandate, must fully comply with its fundamental rights obligations in all of its activities, including its direct or indirect engagement in search and rescue operations, and act in full consistency with relevant international human rights law; further stresses the need to create the appropriate legislative framework that would enable Frontex to act more effectively in maritime emergencies, in full compliance with its fundamental rights obligations;

Or. en

Amendment 151

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
17. Underlines that Frontex must fully comply with fundamental rights in all of its activities, including in its direct or indirect engagement in search and rescue operations, and fully and consistently comply with relevant international human rights law; stresses that under the applicable EU and international legal framework Member States are obliged to render assistance to any vessel or person in distress at sea, regardless of the nationality or status of the person or the circumstances in which that person is found;	17. Points out that Frontex faces major challenges that require its capacities and its budget to be stepped up in order to perform its work under the best possible conditions; looks forward to the reform of the Frontex mandate announced by the President of the Commission for 2026;

Or. fr

Amendment 152

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
17. Underlines that Frontex must fully comply with fundamental rights in all of its activities, including in its direct or indirect engagement in search and rescue operations, and fully and consistently comply with relevant international human rights law; stresses that under the applicable EU and international legal framework Member States are obliged to render assistance to any vessel or person in distress at sea, regardless of the nationality or status of the person or the circumstances in which that person is found;	17. Underlines that Frontex must fully comply with fundamental rights in all of its activities, including in its direct or indirect engagement in search and rescue operations, and fully and consistently comply with relevant international human rights law; stresses that under the applicable EU and international legal framework Member States are obliged to render assistance to any vessel or person in distress at sea, ensuring both the protection of life and the respect of Member States’ competences in border management;

Or. en

Amendment 153

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Sebastian Kruis, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	17 a. Stresses that Frontex's primary mission must be the protection of the Union's external borders, the control of human traffickers and coyotes, and the fight against illegal immigration; underlines that lack of border control is what leads to more deaths at sea;

Or. en

Amendment 154

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Supports the Ombudsman’s suggestions for addressing all of the shortcomings identified in her inquiry into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, including her call for the Council of the EU, the Commission and Parliament to establish an independent commission of inquiry to assess the reasons for the large numbers of deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, with a view to, inter alia, implementing the changes needed to prevent a recurrence of any tragic loss of life;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 155

Mireia Borrás Pabón, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Supports the Ombudsman’s suggestions for addressing all of the shortcomings identified in her inquiry into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, including her call for the Council of the EU, the Commission and Parliament to establish an independent commission of inquiry to assess the reasons for the large numbers of deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, with a view to, inter alia, implementing the changes needed to prevent a recurrence of any tragic loss of life;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 156

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Supports the Ombudsman’s suggestions for addressing all of the shortcomings identified in her inquiry into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, including her call for the Council of the EU, the Commission and Parliament to establish an independent commission of inquiry to assess the reasons for the large numbers of deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, with a view to, inter alia, implementing the changes needed to prevent a recurrence of any tragic loss of life;	18. Rejects the Ombudsman’s suggestions for addressing the shortcomings identified in her inquiry into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea; notes that the effective prevention of illegal immigration, including by fighting human traffickers and cooperating with third countries, is the only way to prevent tragic events and deaths during illegal border crossings; applauds Member States' efforts to guard the EU's external borders; stresses that illegal immigration is a tool of hybrid warfare, of which Poland has also been a victim since 2021;

Or. en

Amendment 157

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Supports the Ombudsman’s suggestions for addressing all of the shortcomings identified in her inquiry into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, including her call for the Council of the EU, the Commission and Parliament to establish an independent commission of inquiry to assess the reasons for the large numbers of deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, with a view to, inter alia, implementing the changes needed to prevent a recurrence of any tragic loss of life;	18. Notes the Ombudsman’s suggestions in her inquiry into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea; stresses that it is essential for the Union to step up its efforts to tackle smuggler networks and human traffickers, bolstering its prevention, detection, and dismantling capabilities with regard to those criminal networks; emphasises the need to deepen cooperation with countries of origin and transit in order to address the root causes of irregular migrations and prevent further deaths at sea; points, in this regard, to the central role of Frontex in the integrated management of external borders, and emphasises that its mandate must be fully mobilised to support Member States in their efforts to tackle migration-related organised crime;

Or. fr

Amendment 158

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Sebastian Kruis, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Supports the Ombudsman’s suggestions for addressing all of the shortcomings identified in her inquiry into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, including her call for the Council of the EU, the Commission and Parliament to establish an independent commission of inquiry to assess the reasons for the large numbers of deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, with a view to, inter alia, implementing the changes needed to prevent a recurrence of any tragic loss of life;	18. Supports the Ombudsman's suggestions to remedy all the shortcomings identified in her inquiry into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, including her request to the Council of the European Union, the Commission and Parliament to establish an independent commission of inquiry to assess the reasons for the high number of deaths in the Mediterranean, with a view, among other things, to implementing a policy of systematically returning intercepted boats to their point of departure and prohibiting anyone who has arrived illegally by boat from settling in the territory of the Union, in order to prevent such tragic loss of life from happening again;

Or. en

Amendment 159

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Supports the Ombudsman’s suggestions for addressing all of the shortcomings identified in her inquiry into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, including her call for the Council of the EU, the Commission and Parliament to establish an independent commission of inquiry to assess the reasons for the large numbers of deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, with a view to, inter alia, implementing the changes needed to prevent a recurrence of any tragic loss of life;	18. Supports the Ombudsman’s suggestions for addressing all of the shortcomings identified in her inquiry into deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, including her call for the Council of the EU, the Commission and Parliament to establish an independent commission of inquiry to assess the reasons for the large numbers of deaths in the Mediterranean Sea;

Or. en

Amendment 160

Nikos Pappas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	18 a. Expresses concern about the deployment of extensive surveillance and monitoring systems in Greece’s RICs; calls on the Commission to ensure that EU funding for such projects does not result in violations of fundamental rights of asylum seekers; insists that the Commission fully implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations concerning transparency of related documents;

Or. en

Amendment 161

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Stresses that the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its lack of transparency with regard to the human rights information that it relied on before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and expressed concerns about the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment, in particular in relation to the ‘Migration and mobility’ pillar of the MoU; expects the Commission to implement all of the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement in a timely manner, applying the most effective measures and upholding the highest standards of human rights protection in all migration-related issues;	deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 162

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Stresses that the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its lack of transparency with regard to the human rights information that it relied on before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and expressed concerns about the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment, in particular in relation to the ‘Migration and mobility’ pillar of the MoU; expects the Commission to implement all of the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement in a timely manner, applying the most effective measures and upholding the highest standards of human rights protection in all migration-related issues;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 163

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Stresses that the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its lack of transparency with regard to the human rights information that it relied on before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and expressed concerns about the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment, in particular in relation to the ‘Migration and mobility’ pillar of the MoU; expects the Commission to implement all of the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement in a timely manner, applying the most effective measures and upholding the highest standards of human rights protection in all migration-related issues;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 164

Mireia Borrás Pabón, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Stresses that the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its lack of transparency with regard to the human rights information that it relied on before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and expressed concerns about the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment, in particular in relation to the ‘Migration and mobility’ pillar of the MoU; expects the Commission to implement all of the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement in a timely manner, applying the most effective measures and upholding the highest standards of human rights protection in all migration-related issues;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 165

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Stresses that the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its lack of transparency with regard to the human rights information that it relied on before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and expressed concerns about the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment, in particular in relation to the ‘Migration and mobility’ pillar of the MoU; expects the Commission to implement all of the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement in a timely manner, applying the most effective measures and upholding the highest standards of human rights protection in all migration-related issues;	19. Notes that the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its lack of transparency with regard to the human rights information that it relied on before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU);

Or. fr

Amendment 166

Paolo Inselvini

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Stresses that the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its lack of transparency with regard to the human rights information that it relied on before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and expressed concerns about the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment, in particular in relation to the ‘Migration and mobility’ pillar of the MoU; expects the Commission to implement all of the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement in a timely manner, applying the most effective measures and upholding the highest standards of human rights protection in all migration-related issues;	19. expects the Commission to ensure, in agreements with the countries of origin of migrants, the implementation of the most effective measures, while also ensuring compliance with the highest standards of human rights protection in all migration-related issues;

Or. it

Amendment 167

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Stresses that the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its lack of transparency with regard to the human rights information that it relied on before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and expressed concerns about the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment, in particular in relation to the ‘Migration and mobility’ pillar of the MoU; expects the Commission to implement all of the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement in a timely manner, applying the most effective measures and upholding the highest standards of human rights protection in all migration-related issues;	19. Stresses that the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its lack of transparency with regard to the information that it relied on before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and found maladministration in the European Commission’s handling of a request for access to documents relating to a high-level meeting in Tunis on 11 June 2023 between EU and Tunisian leaders. She criticised the Commission for failing to identify or explain the absence of documents covering exchanges with Member States and internal discussions that would have been necessary before such a meeting. The Ombudsman also condemned the Commission’s excessive delay of nearly 12 months in reviewing its decision, far beyond the 30-day legal limit, and urged improvements in transparency and timeliness;

Or. en

Amendment 168

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Stresses that the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its lack of transparency with regard to the human rights information that it relied on before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and expressed concerns about the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment, in particular in relation to the ‘Migration and mobility’ pillar of the MoU; expects the Commission to implement all of the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement in a timely manner, applying the most effective measures and upholding the highest standards of human rights protection in all migration-related issues;	19. Stresses that the Ombudsman recognizes the importance of agreements with third countries, such as Tunisia, in order to combat illegal immigration and prevent human tragedies; expects the Commission to implement the most effective measures while respecting the right of European peoples to control their borders and live in security;

Or. en

Amendment 169

Emmanouil Fragkos, Galato Alexandraki

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Stresses that the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its lack of transparency with regard to the human rights information that it relied on before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and expressed concerns about the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment, in particular in relation to the ‘Migration and mobility’ pillar of the MoU; expects the Commission to implement all of the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement in a timely manner, applying the most effective measures and upholding the highest standards of human rights protection in all migration-related issues;	19. Regrets that the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its lack of transparency with regard to the human rights information that it relied on before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and that it wrongly intervened in relation to 'the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment, in particular in relation to the "Migration and mobility" pillar of the MoU';

Or. el

Amendment 170

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Stresses that the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its lack of transparency with regard to the human rights information that it relied on before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and expressed concerns about the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment, in particular in relation to the ‘Migration and mobility’ pillar of the MoU; expects the Commission to implement all of the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement in a timely manner, applying the most effective measures and upholding the highest standards of human rights protection in all migration-related issues;	19. Appreciates the Ombudsman´s commitment with fundamental rights in migration actions; Notes that the Ombudsman asked for greater transparency with regard to the human rights information considered before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and expressed concerns about the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment, in particular in relation to the ‘Migration and mobility’ pillar of the MoU; expects the Commission to implement all of the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement in a timely manner, applying the most effective measures and upholding the highest standards of human rights protection in all migration-related issues;

Or. en

Amendment 171

Nikos Pappas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19 a. Calls on the Commission to fully implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations regarding the monitoring of EU funds allocated to Greece for border management; underlines that the protection of fundamental rights must be a non-negotiable condition for the financing of projects linked to returns, detention centres and border operations;

Or. en

Amendment 172

Emmanouil Fragkos, Galato Alexandraki

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19a. Notes the Ombudsman’s limited action in response to complaints about the squandering of European funds on NGOs dealing with ‘migrant’ and ‘refugee’ matters.

Or. el

Amendment 173

Mireia Borrás Pabón, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19 a. Welcomes the reduction of the protection status of the wolf, given the serious damage suffered by European farmers and herders;

Or. en

Amendment 174

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
20. Criticises the Commission’s refusal to follow the Ombudsman’s recommendation to give greater public access to documents related to the drawing up of proposed legislation to combat child sexual abuse, thus failing to ensure that citizens can verify that it acted independently, and exclusively in the public interest;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 175

Nikos Pappas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
20. Criticises the Commission’s refusal to follow the Ombudsman’s recommendation to give greater public access to documents related to the drawing up of proposed legislation to combat child sexual abuse, thus failing to ensure that citizens can verify that it acted independently, and exclusively in the public interest;	20. Criticises the Commission’s refusal to follow the Ombudsman’s recommendation to grant greater public access to documents related to the drafting of proposed legislation to combat child sexual abuse, thereby failing to ensure that citizens can verify that it acted independently and exclusively in the public interest; underlines that the protection of children from sexual abuse must be the Union’s foremost priority; stresses that this fight must go hand in hand with the protection of fundamental rights, including the right to privacy and data protection; calls on the Commission to ensure full transparency in the preparation of the legislative proposal and to actively involve civil society organisations, experts, and child protection NGOs in the process; further calls on the Ombudsman to closely monitor the follow-up to this legislative file to ensure that EU measures are both effective in protecting children and fully compliant with the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

Or. en

Amendment 176

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
20. Criticises the Commission’s refusal to follow the Ombudsman’s recommendation to give greater public access to documents related to the drawing up of proposed legislation to combat child sexual abuse, thus failing to ensure that citizens can verify that it acted independently, and exclusively in the public interest;	20. Criticises the Commission’s refusal to follow the Ombudsman’s recommendation to give greater public access to documents related to the drawing up of proposed legislation to combat child sexual abuse, thus failing to ensure that citizens can verify that it acted independently, and exclusively in the public interest; underlines that transparency is of particular importance in this context, as the proposal directly touches upon citizens’ fundamental rights and private life; stresses that the Commission’s lack of transparency may have contributed to disinformation and to the instrumentalisation of this sensitive issue to instil fear among the public and to reinforce anti-European narratives;

Or. en

Amendment 177

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	20 a. Appreciates that following the Ombudsman's decisions, EPSO decided to give four complainants an opportunity to redo the tests. In addition to the cases that were closed with a finding of maladministration, EPSO also settled two other cases during the Ombudsman’s inquiry by deciding to invite the complainants to retake the tests. In response to a suggestion and remarks by the Ombudsman, EPSO said it would ensure it is possible to retroactively review the functionality of tools used by candidates during the tests and make it possible in the future to automatically provide candidates with a copy of their answers and the correct answers after testing;

Or. en

Amendment 178

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Appreciates the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry into how the Commission carried out targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU; deplores the fact that the Commission cited a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Specialist Group report to justify downgrading the wolf’s legal protection status in the EU, although it had previously used the same report as the basis for opposing a proposal of the same nature, and despite the fact that no significant changes in wolf populations were recorded; is deeply concerned that the decision to downgrade the protected status of wolves lacks any sound scientific basis, a situation exacerbated by the fact that there was no public access to the relevant documents and insufficient efforts were made to implement adequate preventive measures, which is at odds with the provisions of the Bern Convention4; fears that this decision has created a worrying precedent endangering the overall approach to conservation goals and the management of wildlife and natural habitats;	deleted
_________________
4 Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats;

Or. fr

Amendment 179

Paolo Inselvini

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Appreciates the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry into how the Commission carried out targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU; deplores the fact that the Commission cited a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Specialist Group report to justify downgrading the wolf’s legal protection status in the EU, although it had previously used the same report as the basis for opposing a proposal of the same nature, and despite the fact that no significant changes in wolf populations were recorded; is deeply concerned that the decision to downgrade the protected status of wolves lacks any sound scientific basis, a situation exacerbated by the fact that there was no public access to the relevant documents and insufficient efforts were made to implement adequate preventive measures, which is at odds with the provisions of the Bern Convention4; fears that this decision has created a worrying precedent endangering the overall approach to conservation goals and the management of wildlife and natural habitats;	deleted
_________________
4 Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats;

Or. it

Amendment 180

Pál Szekeres, Georg Mayer, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Appreciates the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry into how the Commission carried out targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU; deplores the fact that the Commission cited a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Specialist Group report to justify downgrading the wolf’s legal protection status in the EU, although it had previously used the same report as the basis for opposing a proposal of the same nature, and despite the fact that no significant changes in wolf populations were recorded; is deeply concerned that the decision to downgrade the protected status of wolves lacks any sound scientific basis, a situation exacerbated by the fact that there was no public access to the relevant documents and insufficient efforts were made to implement adequate preventive measures, which is at odds with the provisions of the Bern Convention4 ; fears that this decision has created a worrying precedent endangering the overall approach to conservation goals and the management of wildlife and natural habitats;	deleted
_________________
4 Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats;

Or. en

Amendment 181

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Appreciates the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry into how the Commission carried out targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU; deplores the fact that the Commission cited a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Specialist Group report to justify downgrading the wolf’s legal protection status in the EU, although it had previously used the same report as the basis for opposing a proposal of the same nature, and despite the fact that no significant changes in wolf populations were recorded; is deeply concerned that the decision to downgrade the protected status of wolves lacks any sound scientific basis, a situation exacerbated by the fact that there was no public access to the relevant documents and insufficient efforts were made to implement adequate preventive measures, which is at odds with the provisions of the Bern Convention4 ; fears that this decision has created a worrying precedent endangering the overall approach to conservation goals and the management of wildlife and natural habitats;	21. Appreciates the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry in 2024 into how the Commission carried out targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU; notes, however, that in accordance with the Ombudsman's statute, the inquiry had to be closed due to a pending case with the European Court of Justice (T-634/24), where the same issues are raised;
_________________
4 Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats;

Or. en

Amendment 182

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Appreciates the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry into how the Commission carried out targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU; deplores the fact that the Commission cited a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Specialist Group report to justify downgrading the wolf’s legal protection status in the EU, although it had previously used the same report as the basis for opposing a proposal of the same nature, and despite the fact that no significant changes in wolf populations were recorded; is deeply concerned that the decision to downgrade the protected status of wolves lacks any sound scientific basis, a situation exacerbated by the fact that there was no public access to the relevant documents and insufficient efforts were made to implement adequate preventive measures, which is at odds with the provisions of the Bern Convention4 ; fears that this decision has created a worrying precedent endangering the overall approach to conservation goals and the management of wildlife and natural habitats;	21. Takes note of the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry into the Commission data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU; Underlines the importance of basing any decision regarding the legal protection status of wolves on scientific evidence and the impact on rural communities;
_________________
4 Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats;

Or. en

Amendment 183

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Appreciates the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry into how the Commission carried out targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU; deplores the fact that the Commission cited a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Specialist Group report to justify downgrading the wolf’s legal protection status in the EU, although it had previously used the same report as the basis for opposing a proposal of the same nature, and despite the fact that no significant changes in wolf populations were recorded; is deeply concerned that the decision to downgrade the protected status of wolves lacks any sound scientific basis, a situation exacerbated by the fact that there was no public access to the relevant documents and insufficient efforts were made to implement adequate preventive measures, which is at odds with the provisions of the Bern Convention4 ; fears that this decision has created a worrying precedent endangering the overall approach to conservation goals and the management of wildlife and natural habitats;	21. Appreciates the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry into how the Commission carried out targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU;
_________________
4 Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats;

Or. en

Amendment 184

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Appreciates the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry into how the Commission carried out targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU; deplores the fact that the Commission cited a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Specialist Group report to justify downgrading the wolf’s legal protection status in the EU, although it had previously used the same report as the basis for opposing a proposal of the same nature, and despite the fact that no significant changes in wolf populations were recorded; is deeply concerned that the decision to downgrade the protected status of wolves lacks any sound scientific basis, a situation exacerbated by the fact that there was no public access to the relevant documents and insufficient efforts were made to implement adequate preventive measures, which is at odds with the provisions of the Bern Convention4 ; fears that this decision has created a worrying precedent endangering the overall approach to conservation goals and the management of wildlife and natural habitats;	21. Takes note of the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry into how the Commission carried out targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU; welcomes the fact that the Commission cited a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Specialist Group report to justify adjusting the wolf’s legal protection status in the EU, consistent with its earlier use of the same report as a basis for policy decisions, and in light of the steady changes observed in wolf populations; is confident that the decision to revise the protected status of wolves is based on sound scientific considerations, strengthened by the availability of relevant documents and by efforts to implement effective preventive measures; believes that this decision has established a positive precedent supporting a balanced approach to conservation goals and the management of wildlife and natural habitats;
_________________
4 Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats;

Or. en

Amendment 185

Maria Zacharia

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Appreciates the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry into how the Commission carried out targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU; deplores the fact that the Commission cited a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Specialist Group report to justify downgrading the wolf’s legal protection status in the EU, although it had previously used the same report as the basis for opposing a proposal of the same nature, and despite the fact that no significant changes in wolf populations were recorded; is deeply concerned that the decision to downgrade the protected status of wolves lacks any sound scientific basis, a situation exacerbated by the fact that there was no public access to the relevant documents and insufficient efforts were made to implement adequate preventive measures, which is at odds with the provisions of the Bern Convention4; fears that this decision has created a worrying precedent endangering the overall approach to conservation goals and the management of wildlife and natural habitats;	21. Appreciates the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry into how the Commission carried out targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU; deplores the fact that the Commission cited a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Specialist Group report to justify downgrading the wolf’s legal protection status in the EU, although it had previously used the same report as the basis for opposing a proposal of the same nature, and despite signs of a decline in the recorded wolf population in 2024 compared to 2023; is deeply concerned that the decision to downgrade the protected status of wolves lacks any sound scientific basis, a situation exacerbated by the fact that there was no public access to the relevant documents and insufficient efforts were made to implement adequate preventive measures, which is at odds with the provisions of the Bern Convention4; fears that this decision has created a worrying precedent endangering the overall approach to conservation goals and the management of wildlife and natural habitats;
_________________	_________________
4 Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats;	4 Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats;

Or. el

Amendment 186

Pál Szekeres, Georg Mayer, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	21 a. Welcomes the decision to downgrade the legal protection status of the wolf in the EU, as this finally takes into account the long-standing concerns of rural communities and farmers, which had been ignored for years; condemns the Commission’s contradictory approach in invoking a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Specialist Group report to justify this decision, although it had previously used the very same source to reject an identical proposal, and despite the fact that no significant changes in wolf population data were recorded; denounces the lack of transparency, the refusal to grant public access to relevant documents, and the failure to implement meaningful preventive measures, which reveal a governance practice driven more by political convenience and personal experience than by scientific consistency; warns that such arbitrary handling of conservation matters undermines trust in EU institutions and sets a dangerous precedent for wildlife and habitat management, even if in this specific case the final outcome is appropriate;

Or. en

Amendment 187

Kosma Złotowski

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
22. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic and technology relations; believes that the Ombudsman’s recommendations must be swiftly implemented and be coupled with additional legally-binding requirements to uphold the highest transparency and accountability standards, especially in light of the Commission’s recent seriously damaging political agreement to further increase the EU’s dependence on the United States in various critical sectors, including defence, AI and fossil fuels, combined with commitments to weaken EU energy regulations, which is detrimental to the EU Green Deal and creates disadvantageous imbalances for the food and agricultural sectors in the EU;	22. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic and technology relations; believes that the Ombudsman’s recommendations must be swiftly implemented and be coupled with additional legally-binding requirements to uphold the highest transparency and accountability standards, especially in light of the Commission’s recent strategically beneficial political agreement to further strengthen the EU’s cooperation with the United States in various critical sectors, including defence, AI and fossil fuels, combined with commitments to balance EU energy regulations, which improves the EU industrial policy and creates advantageous opportunities for the food and agricultural sectors in the EU;

Or. en

Amendment 188

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
22. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic and technology relations; believes that the Ombudsman’s recommendations must be swiftly implemented and be coupled with additional legally-binding requirements to uphold the highest transparency and accountability standards, especially in light of the Commission’s recent seriously damaging political agreement to further increase the EU’s dependence on the United States in various critical sectors, including defence, AI and fossil fuels, combined with commitments to weaken EU energy regulations, which is detrimental to the EU Green Deal and creates disadvantageous imbalances for the food and agricultural sectors in the EU;	22. Notes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic and technology relations; expresses concern about the political agreement concluded by the Commission between the EU and the US, which will increase the EU’s dependence on the United States in a number of strategic sectors;

Or. fr

Amendment 189

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
22. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic and technology relations; believes that the Ombudsman’s recommendations must be swiftly implemented and be coupled with additional legally-binding requirements to uphold the highest transparency and accountability standards, especially in light of the Commission’s recent seriously damaging political agreement to further increase the EU’s dependence on the United States in various critical sectors, including defence, AI and fossil fuels, combined with commitments to weaken EU energy regulations, which is detrimental to the EU Green Deal and creates disadvantageous imbalances for the food and agricultural sectors in the EU;	22. Takes note of the Ombudsman’s proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic, and technology relations;

Or. en

Amendment 190

Gheorghe Falcă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
22. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic and technology relations; believes that the Ombudsman’s recommendations must be swiftly implemented and be coupled with additional legally-binding requirements to uphold the highest transparency and accountability standards, especially in light of the Commission’s recent seriously damaging political agreement to further increase the EU’s dependence on the United States in various critical sectors, including defence, AI and fossil fuels, combined with commitments to weaken EU energy regulations, which is detrimental to the EU Green Deal and creates disadvantageous imbalances for the food and agricultural sectors in the EU;	22. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic and technology relations;

Or. en

Amendment 191

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
22. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic and technology relations; believes that the Ombudsman’s recommendations must be swiftly implemented and be coupled with additional legally-binding requirements to uphold the highest transparency and accountability standards, especially in light of the Commission’s recent seriously damaging political agreement to further increase the EU’s dependence on the United States in various critical sectors, including defence, AI and fossil fuels, combined with commitments to weaken EU energy regulations, which is detrimental to the EU Green Deal and creates disadvantageous imbalances for the food and agricultural sectors in the EU;	22. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic and technology relations; believes that the Ombudsman’s recommendations must be swiftly implemented and be coupled with additional legally-binding requirements to uphold the highest transparency and accountability standards;

Or. en

Amendment 192

Eugen Tomac

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
22. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic and technology relations; believes that the Ombudsman’s recommendations must be swiftly implemented and be coupled with additional legally-binding requirements to uphold the highest transparency and accountability standards, especially in light of the Commission’s recent seriously damaging political agreement to further increase the EU’s dependence on the United States in various critical sectors, including defence, AI and fossil fuels, combined with commitments to weaken EU energy regulations, which is detrimental to the EU Green Deal and creates disadvantageous imbalances for the food and agricultural sectors in the EU;	22. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic and technology relations; believes that the Ombudsman’s recommendations must be swiftly implemented and be coupled with additional legally-binding requirements to uphold the highest transparency and accountability standards;

Or. en

Amendment 193

Paolo Inselvini

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
22. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic and technology relations; believes that the Ombudsman’s recommendations must be swiftly implemented and be coupled with additional legally-binding requirements to uphold the highest transparency and accountability standards, especially in light of the Commission’s recent seriously damaging political agreement to further increase the EU’s dependence on the United States in various critical sectors, including defence, AI and fossil fuels, combined with commitments to weaken EU energy regulations, which is detrimental to the EU Green Deal and creates disadvantageous imbalances for the food and agricultural sectors in the EU;	22. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission on improving transparency in the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, which serves as a forum to coordinate approaches and deepen trade, economic and technology relations; believes that the Ombudsman’s recommendations must be swiftly implemented and be coupled with additional legally-binding requirements to uphold the highest transparency and accountability standards, especially in light of the Commission’s recent seriously damaging political agreement to further increase the EU’s dependence on the United States in various critical sectors, including defence, AI and fossil fuels, combined with commitments to weaken EU energy regulations, which creates disadvantageous imbalances for the food and agricultural sectors in the EU;

Or. it

Amendment 194

Nikos Pappas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	22 a. Notes that the European Ombudsman has opened an inquiry into the handling of the EU-Mercosur negotiations, in particular concerning transparency and the Commission’s failure to finalise a comprehensive Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) before concluding the deal; expresses concern that this failure constitutes maladministration, as it prevented full evaluation of the environmental, social and human rights consequences of the agreement; calls on the Ombudsman to ensure that her inquiry examines whether EU institutions adequately safeguarded environmental and social standards in the negotiation process.

Or. en

Amendment 195

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Georg Mayer, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	22 a. Regrets that the European Commission unilaterally proceeded with the signature of the Mercosur Agreement in December 2024, disregarding the strong and repeated opposition expressed by several national parliaments, by the European Parliament, and by European farmers and breeders; regrets that such a procedure undermines the democratic rights of citizens as exercised through their legitimate political representatives; calls on the European Ombudsman to investigate whether any rights have been breached in the process leading to the signature of this agreemen

Or. en

Amendment 196

Murielle Laurent

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	22 a. Takes note of the Ombudsman’s own-initiative inquiry into how the Commission ensures that experts who are evaluating the European Defence Fund proposals do not have conflicts of interest; notes that the Commission is not required to publicly disclosing the names of those experts; welcomes the Ombudsman’s recommendations to the Commission to proactively ask for additional information about the experts, including by requiring them to complete a detailed declaration of interests;

Or. en

Amendment 197

Murielle Laurent

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	22 b. Notes several complaint-based inquiries by the Ombudsman into the functioning and management of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) which focused on remote testing and on how EPSO had treated candidates’ concerns related to problems they had encountered during remote tests administered by EPSO’s contractor, including technical problems in launching tests, a lack of proper working tools on the testing platform, and excessively long waiting times before a supervisor was available; is alarmed by the Ombudsman’s conclusions of multiple cases of maladministration due to EPSO’s failure to properly address the complainants’ arguments, including providing them with contradictory information or rejecting their complaints even when candidates had followed the instructions for reporting technical issue; calls on the Commission to review all EPSO’s processes and procedures and to urgently remedy all shortcomings as they risk to inflict a serious reputational damage on the Commission and the EU institutional framework as a whole;

Or. en

Amendment 198

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
23. Commends the Ombudsman’s overall activities to protect the rights of persons with disabilities, with a particular focus on the EU administration’s implementation of the UN CRPD, a binding international human rights instrument aimed at promoting and ensuring the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities; supports the Ombudsman’s view that, as a party to the UN CRPD, the EU should lead by example in complying with UN CRPD standards;	23. Commends the Ombudsman’s overall activities to protect the rights of persons with disabilities, with a particular focus on the EU administration’s implementation of the UN CRPD; supports the Ombudsman’s view that, as a party to the UN CRPD, the EU should lead by example in complying with UN CRPD standards; Stresses however that, although progress has been made within the EU institutions in the implementation of the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the achievement of many accessibility targets is still delayed and insufficiently effective; recommends that the next Ombudsman intervene to examine and accelerate accessibility and reasonable accommodations measures in the European institutions and to examine whether people with disabilities are proportionally represented in the institutions;

Or. en

Amendment 199

Maria Zacharia

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
23. Commends the Ombudsman’s overall activities to protect the rights of persons with disabilities, with a particular focus on the EU administration’s implementation of the UN CRPD, a binding international human rights instrument aimed at promoting and ensuring the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities; supports the Ombudsman’s view that, as a party to the UN CRPD, the EU should lead by example in complying with UN CRPD standards;	23. Commends the Ombudsman’s overall activities to protect the rights of persons with disabilities, with a particular focus on the EU administration’s implementation of the UN CRPD, a binding international human rights instrument aimed at promoting and ensuring the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities; supports the Ombudsman’s view that, as a party to the UN CRPD, the EU should lead by example in complying with UN CRPD standards; notes that the Commission should make the agendas and decisions of both ministerial and working groups publicly available in a timely manner, ensure consistent, easily accessible and understandable information for citizens and stakeholders, and put in place procedures to encourage broad and diversified participation in order to enhance accountability and transparency;

Or. el

Amendment 200

Cristina Guarda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	23 a. Appreciates the Ombudsman series of suggestions to help the Commission to ensure that the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in its decision-making remains accountable; takes note of the measures taken by the Commission to guarantee that its use of AI systems complies with the recently-adopted AI Act; underlines the importance of making sure that all AI systems that support the Commission’s work remain under effective human oversight and that, in any case, decision making should not be delegated to these systems; considers key that civil servants responsible for human oversight of AI systems receive adequate training on the critical assessment and verification of AI-produced results, covering all potential risks and generated errors;

Or. en

Amendment 201

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Georg Mayer, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	23 a. Regrets the Commission’s decision to circumvent political and legal obstacles to the ratification of the Mercosur Agreement by splitting it into two separate legal instruments, thereby bypassing national parliaments, overriding the legitimate concerns of Member States, and reducing European Parliament’s oversight to a mere formality limited to trade aspects; calls on the European Ombudsman to launch an inquiry into this matter; stresses that no agreement undermining European farmers, workers, and the Union’s strategic sovereignty should be concluded against the will of Member States and their citizens;

Or. en

Amendment 202

Eugen Tomac, Michał Kobosko

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	23 a. Stresses the importance of close cooperation between the European Ombudsman, the national and regional ombudsmen gathered in the European Network of Ombudsmen (ENO), and the Member States’ administrations, with a view to promoting good administration, transparency and the protection of citizens’ rights across the Union; encourages further exchanges of best practices and joint initiatives to strengthen citizens’ trust in EU and national institutions alike. Encourages the Ombudsman to also strengthen cooperation with the ombudsman institutions of EU candidate countries;

Or. en

Amendment 203

Nikos Pappas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	23 a. Underlines the importance of the Ombudsman’s role in safeguarding social rights, including gender equality, the rights of persons with disabilities, children’s rights, and access to health and social services; calls on the Ombudsman to strengthen her monitoring of how EU institutions and agencies respect these rights in their daily administration and in the implementation of EU-funded programmes;

Or. en

Amendment 204

Cristina Guarda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	23 b. Underlines that the Ombudsman has concluded in several inquiries that EPSO committed maladministration in its handling of candidate complaints, notably concerning remote testing procedures and platform deficiencies, often providing complainants with contradictory information, demonstrating lack of flexibility and taking unreasonable decisions; strongly believes that EPSO should prioritize solving all its severe shortcomings in organising selection procedures to restore their integrity, transparency and accountability in order to safeguard their intended scope, which is directed at securing for the EU Institutions the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency, and integrity, recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of Member States of the Union;

Or. en

Amendment 205

Nadine Morano

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
24. Notes that the acceptance rate for the Ombudsman’s proposals by the EU institutions stood at 82 % in 2024, which is a slight improvement on previous years; firmly believes that the Union’s institutions, agencies, offices and bodies must cooperate satisfactorily with the Ombudsman in all instances, fully and consistently complying with all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations;	24. Notes that the acceptance rate for the Ombudsman’s proposals by the EU institutions stood at 82 % in 2024, which is a slight improvement on previous years; firmly believes that the Union’s institutions, agencies, offices and bodies must cooperate satisfactorily with the Ombudsman;

Or. fr

Amendment 206

Galato Alexandraki, Emmanouil Fragkos

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	24a. Calls on the Committee on Petitions to make public, without delay, the precise time frame and the terms of reference of the mission to Greece regarding the Tempi incident, to expedite, where institutionally feasible, the mission so that it takes place as early as possible in 2026, and to ensure: an impartial, participatory process with meetings with all stakeholders, including victims’ families, workers and independent experts; full access to relevant documents and data, in accordance with the principle of legislative transparency and relevant CJEU rulings; the publication of a detailed mission report with specific recommendations for the Commission and the Greek authorities and a binding follow-up schedule, including an intermediate update within three months of the mission's completion.

Or. el

Amendment 207

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	24 a. Regrets that the Commission concluded the “United States–European Union Framework on Reciprocal, Fair and Balanced Trade” without receiving any formal mandate from the Council, in blatant disregard of the institutional balance enshrined in the Treaties; calls on the European Ombudsman to investigate whether transparency standards were respected during the negotiation process; stresses that no international agreement should be pursued by the Commission without a clear mandate and the full involvement of Member States and their citizens’ representatives; instructs the European Ombudsman to formally remind the Commission of these obligations;

Or. en

Amendment 208

Murielle Laurent

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	24 a. Welcomes the significant increase in the Ombudsman’s social media outreach in 2024, as well as the launch of new accounts on Threads and Bluesky; commends the Ombudsman and her staff for their targeted communication efforts, which contributes to raising citizens’ awareness of EU activities; encourages the Ombudsman to ensure transparency by publishing information on upcoming events she intends to host;

Or. en

Amendment 209

Nikos Pappas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	24 a. Stresses that several inquiries opened in 2024 concerning the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) and Frontex in relation to Greece highlighted systemic challenges in ensuring accountability and compliance with EU fundamental rights obligations; calls on the Commission and the agencies concerned to report to Parliament on the follow-up to the Ombudsman’s findings in these cases;

Or. en

Amendment 210

Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Georg Mayer, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jean-Paul Garraud

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	24 b. Recalls the Ombudsman’s conclusions on the Commission’s refusal to disclose key documents and communications concerning the EU’s vaccine contracts; points out that the EU Court1a has also condemned this lack of transparency; stresses that the Ombudsman’s repeated warnings must be followed by binding measures to ensure full accountability in all future contracts of strategic importance;
	_________________
	1a Case T-36/23, Stevi and The New York Times v Commission, Judgment of the General Court of 17 July 2024

Or. en