Sittings · Document
Follow-up to the European Parliament non-legislative resolution on the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2022
Rapporteur: Petr JAHR (EPP / DE)
Reference number: 2023/2120 (INI) / A9-0414/2023 / P9_TA(2024)0035
Date of adoption of the resolution: 17 January 2024
Competent Parliamentary Committee: Committee on Petitions (PETI)
Brief analysis/ assessment of the resolution and requests made in it:
Every year the Committee on Petitions (‘PETI-Committee’) adopts an own-initiative report on the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman (‘Ombudsman’), currently Ms Emily O’REILLY. This report contains a motion for a resolution and is submitted to the plenary for a debate and a vote. The current resolution was adopted on 17 January 2024 and refers to the activities of the Ombudsman in 2022. According to an established procedure, the Commission replies in writing to the issues raised in the resolution concerning the Commission where replies are needed.
Response to requests and an overview of action taken, or intended to be taken, by the Commission:
Paragraph 7 - The transparency of the interactions between the Commission and the Tobacco industry representatives
The Commission attaches particular importance to ensuring transparency of its interactions with representatives of the tobacco industry. It is clearly essential to comply with EU’s international commitments under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (‘FCTC’).
The Commission has a robust set of rules on ethics and integrity for Commission staff, and on transparency, combined with dedicated arrangements and actions applied by the Commission service (Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety) that holds the main responsibility for setting and implementing public health policies with regard to tobacco control. This provides an effective, proportionate and risk-based framework which protects the institutions from lobbying interference and ensures an adequate level of transparency in line with the FCTC obligations.
Commission Decisions 2014/839/EU, Euratom and 2014/838/EU, Euratom require the Members of the Commission, the members of their Cabinet and Directors-General of the Commission to publish information on all meetings they hold with interest representatives (lobbyists). Such information shall consist of the date of the meeting, the location, the name of the Member of the Commission and/or member of the Cabinet and/ or Director-General, the name of the organisation or self-employed individual and the subject of the meeting. Moreover, the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety and Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union publish minutes of their meetings at all levels held with interest representatives of the tobacco industry. Finally, with regard to meetings at all levels held by other Commission departments with the tobacco industry, minutes of such meetings are subject to document management rules and procedures established by a Commission decision, and such documents can be subject to requests for public access to documents based on Regulation (EC) 1049/2001.
The Commission has welcomed the Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry and has ensured all possible support to the Ombudsman in that context. The Commission has provided written replies to the preliminary findings and has taken due note of the Ombudsman’s decision and suggestion for improvement shared in December 2023.
In responding to the preliminary findings of the inquiry, the Commission also explained that it would instruct all Directors-General and Heads of Service, and all Heads of Cabinet, to conduct an assessment of the exposure of their Services to the lobbying by tobacco representatives in the context of health policies and policies related to tobacco control, and, in case of likely exposure, to put in place internal procedures, including requiring staff to publish minutes of meetings with tobacco representatives and providing a place of their publication. This step (implemented in March 2024) was welcomed by the Ombudsman in her decision.
The Commission will report to the Ombudsman on the outcomes of that assessment and will also provide the Ombudsman with additional clarifications on certain of the Ombudsman’s observations contained in the decision.
Paragraph 8 – An investigation to assess the level of independence of the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group set up by the Commission
The Commission notes that the Ombudsman launched an investigation into the Industry Advisory Group (‘IAG’), a technical expert group under the EU Energy Platform. The investigation focuses on how the Commission decided on the composition of the IAG and how it ensures balanced representation of stakeholders.
During interactions between the Ombudsman, the Secretariat-General and the Director-General for Energy, the latter explained that the IAG was set up in the context of the energy crisis and REPowerEU objectives, and that its purpose is to deliver technical industry know-how on procuring, trading and selling gas products in order to allow the Commission to launch an effective demand aggregation and joint purchasing platform for natural gas for EU companies, called AggregateEU.
The members of the IAG were selected to cover a variety of interests along the natural gas value chain with significant experience in buying or selling gas on international markets. The nature of the meetings is purely technical: no policy discussion took place in the IAG meetings and no policy advice was provided by its participants as reflected in the meeting-related documents the Commission publishes on the Transparency Register.
The selection of IAG members strictly followed the Commission’s horizontal rules on expert groups.
Paragraph 9 – Conflicts of interest of external experts involved in evaluating project proposals under the European Defence Fund
The Commission agrees with the European Parliament on the importance of an effective management of conflicts of interests for the integrity of the evaluation and selection of proposals under the European Defence Fund (‘EDF’) programme, as highlighted by the Ombudsman inquiry.
To this end, this effective management builds on several steps in the process of selecting, recruiting, and using the independent experts that assist in the ethics screening and assessment of the EDF proposals (in compliance with the Financial Regulation applicable to the Union Budget and the provisions in the EDF Regulation).
The Commission will also elaborate on this process in its mid-term evaluation of the EDF programme that will be presented to the European Parliament and the Council.
Paragraph 10 – The Commission’s proposal to amend the Financial Regulation to include the option to reject tenderers if they have a conflict of interest in all procedures related to public procurement
As regards the financial actors, Article 61 of the Financial Regulation currently in force sets rules to declare and avoid or correct conflicts of interest detected. It applies to financial actors and other persons, including national authorities at any level, involved in budget implementation under direct, indirect and shared management, including acts preparatory thereto, audit or control. In 2021, the Commission adopted the Guidance on the avoidance and management of conflicts of interest under the Financial Regulation, to raise awareness and to promote a uniform interpretation and application of the new rules and clarify its main elements.
As regards the prevention of professional conflicting interests on the side of economic operators or tenderers that may negatively affect performance of a procurement contract, we confirm that the proposal for revision of the Financial Regulation (Recast) (COM(2022) 223 final), as provisionally agreed by the European Parliament and the Council on 7 December 2023, contains changes reinforcing the current provisions. This was obtained by adding in the definition of professional conflicting interests a reference to the national law applicable to the members of staff of a national authority (Article 61(2) of the Recast) as well as an explicit ground for rejecting participants from award procedures for such reasons (Article 144(1), point (d) of the Recast). It provides a legal ground to reject a tenderer who has conflicting interests which may negatively affect the performance of the contract. In addition, all tenderers, and, where appropriate, entities on whose capacity the economic operator intends to rely, as well as envisaged subcontractors, must submit a declaration on honour confirming that they do not have any professional conflicting interests, and provide relevant information when required (point 18.4 of Annex I). Finally, the proposal highlights the contracting authority’s obligation to assess whether there are such professional conflicting interests (point 20.1 of Annex I).
As regards the guidance on procurement, the Commission has already updated its guidance (e.g. Vademecum on public procurement) interpreting the existing rules on professional conflicting interests for all EU Institutions. It provides guidance on how to:
draft the tender specifications to include selection criteria related to professional conflicting interests;
evaluate the presence of conflicting interests;
reject tenderers in cases where it has been established that the presence of such interests affects their capacity to perform the contract in an independent, impartial and objective manner.
Moreover, after the adoption of the Financial Regulation (Recast), the guidance on procurement will be further updated to reflect the changes in the new regulation.
Paragraph 11 – The issue of ‘revolving doors’ for Commission staff
On 16 of May 2022, the Ombudsman issued a closing decision relating to her strategic inquiry (launched in 2021) on how the Commission manages ‘revolving doors’ situations of its staff members. Although the Ombudsman had not identified any case of maladministration among the 100 files examined and issued no formal recommendations, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission should apply a more robust approach when managing ‘revolving doors’ moves of its most senior current and former staff members. The Commission replied to the Ombudsman on 31 October 2022.
The Commission replied to the closing decision of the Ombudsman inquiry on “how the Commission manages ‘revolving door’ moves of its staff members”.
The Commission noted with satisfaction that the Ombudsman had not found any single instance of maladministration in the 100 Commission decisions her team had examined. The Ombudsman closed the inquiry without recommendations. This in itself confirms that the Commission’s approach is sound, in line with the rules and does not require systemic improvements.
The Commission also noted that the inquiry found genuine improvements since the matter was last examined in 2019.
The Commission is fully committed to driving the highest ethical standards and maintaining public trust in the integrity and transparency of its decision-making and the integrity of its staff. It implements the existing rules in an effective, robust, and proportionate manner for all categories of staff, including senior managers. Where necessary, the Commission imposes strict mitigating measures to envisaged activities of senior managers and, in certain cases, even forbids them. As regards information on post-service activities of senior managers, the Commission is strictly following the rules in the Staff Regulations, approved by the Parliament and the Council, which provide for an annual publication on cases assessed concerning post service activities of former senior officials.
The Commission welcomed the suggestions of the Ombudsman. While the Commission considers that it is not possible to implement all of them within the applicable legal framework, the Commission committed to examine further measures to protect the public interest and its reputation even more vigorously.
Paragraph 14 - The strengthening of the Code of Conduct for Commissioners to improve lobbying transparency and ethics and the creation of a public record of meetings between Commissioners and lobbyists
The Commission has already strict rules in place on lobbying transparency in relation to Commissioners and their Cabinets. Article 7(1) of Commission Decision of 31 January 2018 on a Code of Conduct for the Members of the Commission sets out that the Members and members of their Cabinets shall meet only those organisations or self-employed individuals, which are registered in the Transparency Register established pursuant to the relevant Interinstitutional Agreement in as much as they fall under its scope. In addition, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Code of Conduct for the Members of the Commission and Article 1 of Commission Decision 2014/839/EU, Euratom, Members of the Commission shall make public information on all meetings held by them and members of their Cabinet with organisations or self-employed individuals on issues relating to policy-making and implementation in the Union. The Commission publishes systematically such information in a standardised format on the websites of the Members of the Commission within two weeks following the meeting. A list of published meetings is also made available on the entry of the registrant concerned in the Transparency Register.
Pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Code, the Commission also publishes an overview of mission expenses per Member every two months covering all missions undertaken. A link to the relevant information can be found on each Member’s respective website.
Paragraph 16 - The transparency of EU environmental decision-making (failure to consider properly the environmental impact of the EU-Mercosur trade agreement, shortcomings in handling requests on public access to environmental information, etc.)
In the Commission, the Directorate-General for Trade is responsible for the implementation of the trade policy of then Union. In this context, it negotiates Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters in trade agreements to ensure that parties respect core national and international environmental commitments. The Directorate-General for Environment actively participates in the negotiation and subsequent implementation of Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters in trade agreements. While trade policy contributes to projecting EU environmental policies at global level, describing the negotiations between the EU and Mercosur as “EU environmental decision-making” constitutes a misrepresentation of trade negotiations. As regards the claims related to transparency, the Directorate-General for Trade continues to apply a transparent approach to all stages of EU trade negotiations, in line with the commitments reinstated in the Trade Policy Review ‘An Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy’. The Commission carried out all the due diligence during the EU-Mercosur negotiations to ensure that the envisaged Agreement complied with existing human rights obligations and did not lower the existing standards of human rights, social and environmental protection. In this respect, the Commission did not conduct just one, but two Strategic Impact (‘SIA’) Assessments and the second SIA was not concluded before the end of the negotiations. This was not possible, because negotiations were still ongoing until 30 January 2024, and technical discussions are continuing. Moreover, civil society was able to provide comments to the interim report for several months.
In addition, the Commission does not agree that the Ombudsman, in her Annual Report 2022, identified shortcomings in how the Commission handles requests for public access to environmental information. The Ombudsman rather underlined that citizens could be more involved in the preparation and implementation of green policies, and that she has launched a public consultation to assess the transparency of EU environmental decision-making.
Paragraph 17 - The transparency of national plans under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (‘RRF’)
The Commission acknowledges the importance of high standards of transparency and accountability in the implementation of the RRF. Since the beginning of the RRF implementation, the Commission has made significant efforts to further reinforce the quality and transparency of the information provided on the RRF, in line with the requests expressed by the European Parliament as part of the last discharge exercise as well as the Ombudsman.
In this context, the Commission welcomes the fact that in September 2023 the Ombudsman closed her strategic own-initiative inquiry on the transparency and accountability in the implementation of the RRF welcoming the progress made since the start of her initiative. The Commission has taken due note of the suggestions provided by the Ombudsman for further improvement, as well as those of the European Parliament, and will closely consider how to implement them with the aim of further increasing transparency, while considering the limits of the legal framework and operational constraints.
The Commission has and will continue to share all Recovery and Resilience Plans (‘RRPs’) and modified plans submitted by the Member States with the European Parliament and Council, as well as all preliminary assessments of payment requests. In addition to the important amount of information on the implementation of the RRF in each Member State published on the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, the Commission also proactively publishes a considerable volume of documents on its webpage on the RRF, including its proposals for Council implementing decisions approving RRPs (and links to the adopted decisions), the Commission Staff Working Documents accompanying the assessment, operational arrangements and its preliminary assessments of payment requests.
Moreover, in 2023, the Commission launched an interactive map for RRF projects. It also published three methodological notes to clarify the application of the RRF Regulation (satisfactory fulfilment of milestones and targets, suspension of payments and reversal of milestones and targets). The Commission will continue updating the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, its website and the interactive map to ensure that they reflect up-to-date data.
Furthermore, the last RRF annual report and the Annual Activity Reports of the Commission’s Secretariat-General and the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs include a detailed presentation of the audit work conducted by the Commission on the RRF.
Regarding the information on final recipients, the amendments to Regulation (EU) 2021/241 (RRF Regulation), which entered into force in 2023, require each Member State to publish information on the 100 final recipients receiving the highest amounts of RRF funding. By the end of 2023, all the Member States had provided data, all of which is fully available to the public on the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard. Member States are expected to update this data twice a year.
With respect to access to documents requests in particular, Commission services strive to process the many requests on the RRF as swiftly as possible, in line with the principles and processes laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. As of January 2024, the Commission had received more than 180 requests for access to documents on the RRF. For these requests, the Commission has disclosed more than 2,000 documents related to different national plans and the RRF as a whole.
Paragraphs 18 and 19 - The transparency and balanced interest representation under the common agricultural policy (‘CAP’)
The Commission has opted for maximum transparency in the CAP Strategic Plans approval process. In line with the requirements of the Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 on support for the CAP Strategic Plans, Member States have conducted consultations in preparing the CAP Strategic Plans (‘CSPs’). Each CAP Strategic Plan (‘CSP’) is country specific, defined at Member State level by the national authorities. The strategy and interventions planned are the result of a SWOT analysis carried out by the Member States, thus addressing its specific needs. As each CSP strikes a unique balance between the identified needs and the policy objectives the Plan contributes to, a direct comparison between different CSPs is not possible.
All CSPs are complete, containing all elements requested by the legislation, and have been approved by the Commission. During the drafting of the CSPs, the so-called partnership approach has been followed, meaning the involvement of relevant stakeholders at national and regional levels. In view of ensuring maximum transparency, the observation letters by the Commission to the Member States (for the initial approval) as well as all approval decisions, both the original ones and the ones on amendments to the CSP, are published.
To the Commission’s knowledge, all CSPs have been published on dedicated national websites that Member States set up. Links to these national websites are made available also on the Europa website. In addition, the Commission aiming for greater transparency, developed and published brief highlights of the adopted Plans. These are available in English and in the national language of the MS and were very much appreciated by stakeholders. Also, up to date information on the implementation of the CSPs is regularly presented by the Member States to its stakeholders in the Monitoring Committees.
Regarding meetings of the Commission services with stakeholders, the Commission is of the opinion that the number of meetings with individual stakeholders is not a reliable indicator of the balance of the interests represented. The Cabinet of the Commissioner for Agriculture and the Directorate-General for Agriculture are available and keen to meet all stakeholders upon demand, as shown over the years. The Directorate-General for Agriculture and the Commissioner have been promoting environmental and climate objectives in meetings with farmers representatives. Farmers are the main drivers of the shift towards greater sustainability in agriculture and the main providers of the public goods supported by the CAP. In addition, the Directorate-General for Agriculture regularly organises meetings of Civil Dialogue Groups at the EU level.
The Directorate-General for Agriculture also finances and supports activities of the EU CAP Network with the aim to promote the greater engagement of all stakeholder types and exchange of information. Information on the EU CAP network’s activities, including events, their outcomes and highlights reports, is available and publicly accessible at the network’s website. The EU CAP network is put in place in accordance with Article 126(5) of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 to support the networking of national networks, organisations, and administrations in the field of agriculture and rural development at Union level. New developments in this area have happened after 21 June 2022, the date of the Commission reply to the Ombudsman. Thus, exchange of information, knowledge and good practices with and among stakeholders has been facilitated in the framework of the EU CAP network, launched in October 2022 by merging the former European Network for Rural Development (ENRD) and EIP-AGRI (agricultural European Innovation Partnership) network. Among other events, the EU CAP network organised in March and May 2023 a thematic group on “CAP Strategic Plans: Towards Implementation”, which provided an opportunity to bring together a selection of EU level stakeholders alongside Managing Authorities and Paying Agencies involved in the design and implementation of CSPs to exchange on the key features, challenges and processes required to take the CSPs forward. Another thematic group, on the “CAP Strategic Plans: Monitoring Committees” has been launched in September 2023 to exchange on the design and operation of Monitoring Committees as part of wider governance of CSPs implementation at national and sub-national levels and on how Managing Authorities ensure the involvement of relevant stakeholders.
Concerning transparency on how CAP funds are spent, the Commission is fully committed in ensuring to the public the broadest access to information while striking the right balance between the rights of citizens in a democratic society and the protection of the privacy of the data.
The rules for the 2023-2027 CAP provide for enhanced transparency. Regulation (EU) 2021/2116, Articles 98-100 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/128, Chapter VI Articles 58-62, contain the ruleset concerning transparency publication. In detail, Member States must publish: the name of the beneficiary; name of the operation, start and end date; total cost of the operation; fund concerned; specific objective concerned; Union co-financing rate; municipality.
The 2023-2027 CAP framework provides in particular that Member States will also be obliged to collect from beneficiaries and publish data on identification of the group of undertakings (parent company), to which they belong and to keep that information up to date. For the CAP the data is aggregated in one reporting system per Member State, thus facilitating data access.
Member States have an obligation to publish data on all their CAP beneficiaries on an annual basis by 31 May of the financial year in question. Moreover, in line with the Union legislation, Member States’ website should allow for filtering and extraction of data. The Commission is making sure Member States publish the data on time and that all required functionalities are in place.
Commission has successfully revised the legal and procedural framework needed to ensure the continuity of the civil dialogue with stakeholders which started operating as from 2023. The organisation of Civil Dialogue Groups in matters covered by the common agricultural policy is set up by the new Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1368 of 3 August 2022.
The new Civil Dialogue Groups governance differs in substance from the organisation set up by the Commission Decision 2013/767/EU of 16 December 2013. What prevails is an equal access to the system for all stakeholders which responded to the call for application and fulfilled the selection criteria.
The recent reform represents a concrete step forward in the direction of a more balanced composition of the Civil dialogue groups. The Commission has achieved this result in particular by granting a single membership to each organisation, instead of distributing several seats to each of the larger organisations, as it was done under the previous system. Moreover, the Commission has taken up the role of the Chair, to facilitate and objectivise the consultation process, by ensuring that all voices are heard and various opinions can be expressed.
The new Civil Dialogue Groups governance is open, transparent and inclusive for both economic and non-economic actors. The guiding principle of the reform was to guarantee a balanced representation and equal status of the wide range of interest groups, which represent, as broadly as possible, different stakes and viewpoints regarding developments in Directorate-General for Agriculture policy area. The final balance achieved in expert groups depends on the number and quality of responses which Commission receives to its calls for applications.
The Commission is of the opinion that, rather than adopting a definition of 'balance' for each group, efforts should be made in order to make selection processes more transparent and inclusive. This goal was achieved in the course of the recent reform of the agricultural Civil Dialogue Groups.
Paragraph 20 - The treatment of access to documents requests in a timely manner under Regulation 1049/2001
Dealing with requests for public access to documents is a matter of great importance for the Commission as an EU Institution committed to transparency.
Data show a high level of transparency of the Commission, as full or partial access is granted to the vast majority of the documents requested. Full or partial access was granted in 77% of the cases at the initial stage in 2022, and wider or even full access was granted in 51% of the cases reviewed at confirmatory stage in that same year. This data not only confirms the openness of the Commission, but also its commitment to the right to access documents as part of its overall transparency policy.
Most requests for public access to documents submitted to the Commission (84% of all the initial requests received by the Commission) are handled in a timely manner, in full compliance with the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The delays signalled by the Ombudsman concern mainly requests from applicants to review the initial replies of the institution (the so-called ‘confirmatory applications’), which represents approximately 4.4% of all the requests received by the Commission. In the context of the inquiry of the Ombudsman, the Commission duly explained the main reasons behind the delays in the handling of confirmatory requests (including inter alia the ever-growing number of initial and confirmatory applications, the ever-wider scope and the higher degree of complexity of the requests).
The Commission has allocated more resources to deal with confirmatory applications and is already implementing most of the recommendations of the Ombudsman in her own-initiative inquiry on the matter. The Commission is in constant contact with the Ombudsman on this topic.
The Commission stands ready to engage in the discussion with the European Parliament on this matter in the light of the findings of the Special Report of the Ombudsman and explain what it does to enhance the handling of the requests for public access to documents.
Paragraph 21 - The recording of work-related text and instant messages
The Commission took note of the practical recommendation for the EU administration on the recording of work-related text and instant messages. In an effort to ensure greater certainty for the Commission in the application of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, the Commission announced its intention to issue further guidance on communication tools such as text and instant messages.
To ensure consistency, the Commission reached out to the other EU institutions and bodies and proposed to draw up together guidance for the staff of the institutions on the use of communication tools in EU professional context. This exercise is ongoing.
Paragraph 23 - The setting up by the Commission of a new and separate complaint handling portal for alleged human rights abuses
The Commission shares the importance attached by the Parliament and by the Ombudsman to ensuring that EU citizens, organisations and other stakeholders have clear channels to raise concerns, particularly, regarding human rights abuses. Depending on the nature and specific situation concerning the alleged abuses, responsibility may fall either to the Commission or the European External Action Service with whom we work closely in such an important area.
The Commission’s view as expressed in its reply to the Ombudsman is that clear and appropriate channels already exist reflecting these shared responsibilities. For example, the Commission’s Single-Entry Point in the trade area allows stakeholders to raise issues related to EU trade instruments, including specific human rights concerns, while such human rights concerns can be and are also communicated directly to the Commission and the European External Action Service, both in headquarters and EU Delegations. In addition, the European External Action Service systematically and proactively seeks input from stakeholders - notably civil society organisations and human right defenders - from both the EU and third countries in the context of the political and human rights dialogues held with third countries. This practice is also replicated in the Generalised Scheme of Preferences context, reaching beyond just the countries with which the EU has trade agreements. For these reasons, the Commission is not convinced that attempting to reorganise these contacts or focus them exclusively in the Commission via a new or additional channel would not bring added value.
Paragraph 25 - The delay of the Commission in setting up an appropriate monitoring mechanism for border management by the Croatian authorities
The Commission has underlined to the Croatian authorities that the most effective way to respond to allegations related to possible violations of fundamental rights is through prompt and systematic follow-up investigations that are transparent as regards to their outcome. The responsibility to carry out such investigations lies with the national authorities in accordance with national law. Croatia has set up an Independent Monitoring Mechanism (IMM), which entered into force on 8 June 2021 based on the agreement between the Croatian authorities and Croatian stakeholders. It gives the possibility to directly conduct Independent Monitoring Mechanism activities. Subsequently, the 2nd Cooperation agreement was signed in November 2022, and for the implementation of the renewed IMM.
The Commission works with the Croatian authorities to support them in the implementation of the IMM as part of the Advisory Board, while the implementation of the IMM is within the mandate of the Coordination Board. The Commission has an advisory role in the implementation of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism, as member of the IMM Advisory Board. The Advisory Board, an informal body that is not part of the IMM, can only issue recommendations to the Coordination Board, and ultimately address them to the Croatian Ministry on how to improve the transparency and the independence of the monitoring mechanism. The Advisory Board includes representatives from the Commission and relevant EU agencies as well national human rights institutions and various national institutions whose mandates include overseeing fundamental rights compliance. In line with the Ombudsman’s suggestions, the Commission, as member of the Advisory Board, will continue to provide recommendations both to the Coordination Board and to the Croatian authorities, in view of the further improvements of the IMM.
Paragraph 29 - The monitoring of EU Structural and Investment Funds to ensure that funds are used to strengthen the rights of persons with disabilities to independent living and inclusion and the need for clearer guidance about the need to promote deinstitutionalisation in the context of the use of EU Structural and Investment Funds
As a flagship from the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Commission will publish Guidance in 2024 recommending to Member States improvements on independent living and community inclusion, to promote approaches that are in line with UNCRPD. This guidance will consider diverse perspectives, including children with disabilities, and will take a practical approach, exploring examples of promising practice from Member States’ experiences of using EU funds to support deinstitutionalisation processes and to develop the conditions for independent living.