On the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2024

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2024

(2025/2138(INI))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2024,

– having regard to Article 10(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

– having regard to Articles 15, 24(3), 228 and 298(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

– having regard to Articles 11, 41, 42 and 43 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter),

– having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD),

– having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2021/1163 of the European Parliament of 24 June 2021 laying down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties (Statute of the European Ombudsman) and repealing Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom,

– having regard to the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, as adopted by Parliament on 6 September 2001,

– having regard to the Framework Agreement on Cooperation concluded between Parliament and the European Ombudsman on 15 March 2006, which entered into force on 1 April 2006,

– having regard to its previous resolutions on the European Ombudsman’s activities,

– having regard to Rules 55 and 148(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A100000/2025),

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;

B. whereas Articles 20, 24 and 228 TFEU empower the European Ombudsman to receive complaints concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) acting in its judicial role;

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);

D. whereas in 2024, the majority of the inquiries concerned the Commission (270 inquiries, or 65.0 %), followed by EPSO (27 inquiries, or 6.5 %), the EEAS (16 inquiries or 3.9 %) and Frontex (14 inquiries, or 3.4 %); whereas the remaining inquiries were distributed as follows: OLAF (11 inquiries, or 2.6 %), Parliament (9 inquiries, or 2.2 %), Europol (8 inquiries, or 1.9 %), the EIB (8 inquiries, or 1.9 %), the European Union Agency for Asylum (5 inquiries, or 1.2 %), other EU Agencies (33 inquiries, or 8.0 %) and other EU institutions or bodies (14 inquiries, or 3.4 %);

E. whereas in the inquiries closed by the Ombudsman in 2024, no maladministration was found in 15.5 % of cases, the matter was settled by the institution in 61.1 % of cases, no further inquiries were justified in 15.7 % of cases, and maladministration was found in 8.0 % of cases;

F. whereas the top three concerns in the inquiries closed by the Ombudsman in 2024 were transparency and accountability (42.2 %), culture of service (17.3 %) and recruitment (14.1 %); whereas other concerns include respect for fundamental rights, public participation in EU decision-making, ethics, proper management of infringement procedures, whistleblowing and sound financial management;

G. whereas in 2024, the Ombudsman also conducted wider strategic inquiries and initiatives in relation to systemic issues in the EU institutions, covering public access to documents, fundamental rights, ethical issues, accountability in decision-making and recruitment of EU civil servants;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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 Law;

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;

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;

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;

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 Law 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;

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;

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;

1. Approves the annual report for 2024 presented by the Ombudsman and commends her excellent presentation of the Ombudsman’s key activities in 2024;

2. Congratulates the new Ombudsman on her appointment and praises her commitment to ensuring that the EU administration upholds a citizen-oriented approach;

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;

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;

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;

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 nonchemical 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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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 Convention; fears that this decision has created a worrying precedent endangering the overall approach to conservation goals and the management of wildlife and natural habitats;

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;

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;

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;

25. Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the report of the Committee on Petitions to the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, and their ombudsmen or similar competent bodies.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2024 was formally submitted to the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, on 13 May 2025 and the Ombudsman, Ms Teresa Anjinho, presented the report to the Committee on Petitions in Brussels on 24 June 2025.

The Ombudsman’s mandate is enshrined in Articles 24 and 228 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 24 of the TFEU, as well as Article 43 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, establishes the right to complain to the European Ombudsman. According to Article 228 TFEU, the European Ombudsman elected by the European Parliament, is empowered to receive complaints from any citizen of the Union, or any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role.

Additional cornerstones, particularly bound to the Ombudsman’s role, are Article 298(1) TFEU, which sets out 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’, and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union where it is underlined 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’.

The European Ombudsman helps people, organisations and businesses facing problems with the EU’s administration by dealing with complaints received, seeking to promote the improvement of good administrative practices by delivering suggestions and recommendations when maladministration cases and broader systemic issues in the EU institutions are identified. If the Ombudsman is not in a position to inquire into complaints received, the Office tries to help all those seeking assistance in all 24 official languages of the EU, for example by providing advice on other possibilities for redress.

In 2024, 17 770 citizens addressed the Ombudsman, of whom 14 782 were given advice through the Interactive Guide on the Ombudsman’s website, while 724 requests for information were replied to by the Ombudsman’s services and 2 264 were handled by the Ombudsman as complaints.

Out of the total number of 2 264 complaints processed by the Ombudsman in 2024, 875 fell within the Ombudsman’s mandate and 1 389 fell outside the scope of the Ombudsman’s mandate.

In 2024, the European Ombudsman processed 1 389 complaints that did not fall within her mandate, mostly because they did not concern the work of the EU administration. Nearly 36% of such complaints came from Spain, Germany and Poland. Citizens directed complaints to the Ombudsman with issues concerning equal treatment or discrimination, consumer protection, court cases, corruption, and employment. The out of mandate complaints primarily related to problems encountered with national, regional or local public authorities, governments and public service bodies, and national or international courts (such as the European Court of Human Rights). Some out of mandate complaints concerned EU institutions but were related to political or legislative work.

In the cases of the out of mandate complaints, the Ombudsman clarified its mandate and advised complainants to turn to other bodies that could help. For instance, the Ombudsman guided complainants to national and regional ombudsman institutions, to EU institutions (mostly the European Commission and the European Parliament), and networks, such as SOLVIT and the European Consumer Centres. Where complainants were unhappy with specific EU legislation, the Ombudsman advised them to turn to the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions.

In 2024, the Ombudsman’s Office opened 415 inquiries, of which 411 were complaint-based and 4 were own-initiative inquiries, while closing 427 inquiries (421 complaint-based and 6 own-initiative inquiries). As part of its strategic work in 2024, various inquiries conducted by the Ombudsman were wider strategic inquiries and initiatives into systemic issues in the EU institutions.

Most of the overall Ombudsman’s inquiries concerned the Commission (270 inquiries or 65%), the next largest number concerned the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) (27 inquiries or 6.5%), the European External Action Service (EEAS) (16 inquiries or 3.9%) and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX) (14 inquiries or 3.4%). The rest were distributed as follows: the European Anti-Fraud Office (11 inquiries or 2.6%), the European Parliament (9 inquiries or 2.2%), the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (EUROPOL) (8 inquiries or 1.9%), the European Investment Bank (8 inquiries or 1.9%), the European Union Agency for Asylum (5 inquiries or 1.2%), other EU agencies (33 inquiries or 8%) and other EU institutions or bodies (14 inquiries or 3.4%).

The inquiries closed by the European Ombudsman in 2024 were settled by the institution in 261 cases (61.1%), there was no maladministration found in 66 cases (15.5%) and in 34 (8%) cases the Ombudsman found maladministration.

The length of inquiry of cases closed by the European Ombudsman in 2024 was less than 6 months on average. 212 cases (50%) were closed within 3 months, 152 cases (36%) were closed within 3 to 12 months, 44 cases (10%) were closed within 12 to 18 months and only 19 cases (4%) were closed after more than 18 months.

The acceptance rate (the percentage of positive replies to the total number of proposals by the Ombudsman) for 2024, which covers cases closed in 2023, was 82% of the cases. Of the 92 proposals made by the Ombudsman to correct or improve their administrative practices, the EU institutions reacted positively to 75 of them.

The top three concerns in the inquiries closed by the Ombudsman in 2024 were transparency and accountability (42.2%), culture of service (17.3%) and recruitment (14.1%). Other concerns include proper management of infringement procedures, good management of personnel issues, proper use of discretion (including in infringement procedures), respect for procedural rights, grants, procurement, contracts, respect for fundamental rights, ethics, public participation in EU decision making, sound financial management and whistleblowing.

 Accountability in decision making

The Ombudsman found maladministration in the significant and systemic delays by the Commission in preparing draft decisions for granting or refusing authorisation on dangerous chemicals in breach of the statutory deadline of three months. The Ombudsman also found that the Commission’s failure to ensure sufficient transparency of the related overall decision-making process constituted maladministration. The Rapporteur strongly regrets that the significant delays accumulated by the Commission represent a major threat to human health and the environment as companies can continue using the chemical substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), worsening carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction risks.

She firmly believes that the Commission must solve, as a matter of priority, all these severe shortcomings, complying with the legally binding deadline as well as rejecting any authorisation’s request and banning any of use of chemical substances in presence of persistent uncertainty for the protection of human health and the environment. The Rapporteur is convinced that the Commission should also fully implement all Ombudsman’s recommendations made following the outcome of her inquiry.

The Rapporteur is also firmly convinced that the continued authorization of hazardous pesticides must end immediately, stressing that the Commission must highly improve rules on substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides to favour nonchemical safe alternatives with a view to swiftly moving toward a sustainable food system and a toxic free environment.

According to the Rapporteur, the Commission must refrain from approving ‘active substances’ used in pesticides where no safe use has been identified or when additional data confirming their safety is needed in full application of the precautionary principle. Furthermore, the Rapporteur stresses that the Commission must ensure a fully transparent and free from conflicts of interest approval process, committing to put an end to the use of all synthetic pesticides by 2035 at the latest, relaunching the request of more than 1 million European citizens under the successful ECI titled “Save bees and farmers! Towards a bee-friendly agriculture for a healthy environment”.

The Rapporteur criticises the severe lack of transparency around the sponsoring by private companies of informal meetings of Ministers, as well as cultural and social events, organized by the Council of the EU, regretting that such sponsors are also authorized to use the logo of the Presidency of the Council for commercial purposes. The Rapporteur believes that this practice must be stopped immediately, complying, inter alia, with the specific request in this sense already made by the Parliament some years ago.

The Rapporteur commends the remarkable work by the Ombudsman in urging the Commission to guarantee full and meaningful inclusiveness of all social and environmental stakeholders in its decision-making process as well as in helping preserve this latter from undue influence from industry. The Rapporteur appreciated the Ombudsman’s activities aimed at helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups, with a particular focus on the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, considering the high social and environmental stakes at play with regard to energy policies. The Rapporteur strongly criticises the Commission decision to completely exclude civil society representatives from this Group, providing fossil fuel industries with privileged and unmonitored access to EU policymakers as well as increasing their influence on the EU decision-making.

The Rapporteur recalls that the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change in a new report of May 2025 to the UN General Assembly titled “The imperative of defossilizing our economies” called for a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying, advertising and sponsorship and to adequately inform the public about the fossil fuel industry’s deliberate contributions to the planetary crises and about their human rights impacts over decades.

The Rapporteur welcomes the Ombudsman’s series of proposals to the Commission aimed at 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. She believes that the Ombudsman’s recommendations must be swiftly implemented and be complemented with additional legally binding requirements to uphold the highest transparency and accountability standards, especially in light of the recent harmful Commission’s political agreement to further increase EU’s dependence on the United States in various critical sectors. The Rapporteur underlines that this agreement will clearly result damaging for the EU Green Deal as well as creating, inter alia, disadvantageous imbalances for the food and agricultural sectors in the EU.

The Rapporteur highly appreciates the Ombudsman’s investigations into how the Commission prepared a proposal to amend legislation related to the Common Agricultural Policy, deploring that the Commission did not carry out an impact assessment, decided not to consult environmental organisations as well as failing to appropriately consult the general public, thus failing to comprehensively examining the available evidence, in breach of the principle of evidence-based decision-making, as laid down in the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, as well as in case law.

The Rapporteur commends the Ombudsman’s decision in 2024 to open an inquiry into how the Commission carried out a targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the EU. She is deeply worried that the decision to downgrade the protected status of wolves lacking sound scientific evidence, aggravated by no public access to documents and insufficient efforts to implement adequate preventive measures, at odds with the provisions of the Bern Convention, created a very bad precedent endangering the overall approach on the conservation goals and management of wildlife and natural habitats.

 Access to documents

The Rapporteur recalls that the Parliament approved with a quasi-unanimity the Ombudsman’s Special Report concerning the time the Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents asking the Commission for correcting its systemic delays in its handling of access requests, as they are in breach of democratic principles set out in the EU Treaties. The Ombudsman found that the Commission missed the legal deadlines for reviewing initial access decisions in 85% of cases and delays typically occurred on access requests concerning areas of significant public importance. The Rapporteur stresses that such delays have particularly serious consequences when it comes to legislative documents undermining citizens’ ability to timely scrutinise EU decisions and policies, hampering their meaningful participation in the democratic life of the EU.

The Rapporteur considers necessary pursuing an action against the Commission 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, in case the Commission’s significant delays in processing requests for public access to documents persist.

The Rapporteurs recalls that public access to the documents EU institutions hold is a fundamental right set out in the EU Treaties, playing 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. The Rapporteur is firmly convinced that the EU institutions must guarantee full transparency and the highest levels of citizens’ participation in the EU decision-making process, ensuring that citizens can keep decision makers accountable, fully exercise their democratic rights and have access to all the relevant information and documents, including while the legislative process is ongoing, as also stipulated by the CJEU’s case law.

 Fundamental rights

In 2024, the Ombudsman concluded an own-initiative inquiry into how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) complies with its fundamental rights obligations in the context of its search and rescue activities. The inquiry looked into how Frontex ensures the respect of fundamental rights in the context of search and rescue (SAR) operations, following the Adriana shipwreck in June 2023. The Rapporteur underscores that Frontex must fully comply with fundamental rights in all its activities, including in its direct or indirect engagement in search and rescue (SAR) operations, fully and consistently complying with the relevant International human rights law. The Rapporteur fully supports the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement aimed at addressing all shortcomings identified in her inquiry into deaths in Mediterranean, including her call on the Council of the EU, the Commission and the Parliament to establish an independent commission of inquiry to assess the reasons for the large numbers of deaths in the Mediterranean sea, with the view to, inter alia, making the necessary changes to prevent any tragic loss of lives from reoccurring.

As part of its strategic work, the Ombudsman also criticised the European Commission’s failure to inform the public on how it assessed human rights risks before signing the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding and expressed concerns about the absence of a prior human rights impact assessment (HRIA), notably related to the ‘Migration and mobility’ pillar of the MoU. The Rapporteur calls on 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.

 Ethical issues

In 2024, the Ombudsman looked at conflicts of interest risks. In a complaint-based inquiry, the European Ombudsman also found that the European Commission, in dealing with an infringement complaint, failed to properly assess conflict of interest allegations concerning the then Agriculture Commissioner. The Rapporteur considers it of utmost importance that the Commission fully and consistently implements the suggestions for improvement made by the Ombudsman in its handling of potential conflicts of interest involving its Commissioners, ensuring that any decision-making process supervised directly or indirectly by any concerned Commissioner is suspended until a final decision is taken on the existence of a conflict of interest.

The Rapporteur 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.

Relations with the European Parliament

The Rapporteur expresses her appreciation for the constructive cooperation between the European Ombudsman and the European Parliament, in particular its Committee on Petitions, as well as the other EU institutions. She congratulates the new European Ombudsman, Ms Teresa Anjinho, on her election and praises her commitment to ensure that the EU administration upholds a citizens-oriented approach.

UN Disability Rights Convention

The Rapporteur commends the overall activities performed by the Ombudsman in 2024 to protect the rights of persons with disabilities paying close attention to 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. The Rapporteur supports the Ombudsman’s viewpoint that, as a party to the UN CRPD, the EU should lead by example in complying with UN CRPD standards.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

The rapporteur declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not include in her report input from interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register1, or from representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, to be listed in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

_________________________________

Interinstitutional Agreement of May 2021 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on a mandatory transparency register (OJ L 207, 11.6.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2021/611/oj).