Report - A10-0015/2026Report
A10-0015/2026
European Parliament

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

17.2.2026 - (2025/2138(INI))

Committee on Petitions
Rapporteur: Bogdan Rzońca[1]
PR_INI_AnnOmbud


Procedure : 2025/2138(INI)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected :  
A10-0015/2026
Texts tabled :
A10-0015/2026
Debates :
Votes :
Texts adopted :

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,

– 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[2],

– 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 (A10-0015/2026),

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; whereas Ms Teresa Anjinho was elected as the new Ombudsman on 17 December 2024;

B. 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;

C. whereas the work of the Ombudsman contributes to helping EU institutions become more efficient, effective, citizen-friendly and accountable, thereby increasing citizens’ trust in the European project; whereas, in the exercise of her mandate, the Ombudsman may have to address new phenomena that have significantly increased in recent times, such as disinformation and malicious activities from third countries, aimed at undermining citizens’ trust in the EU;

D. 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;

E. 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’;

F. 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’;

G. 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’;

H. 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’;

I. whereas the EU 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 the Ombudsman, as a member of this framework, pays close attention to the EU administration’s implementation of the UN CRPD; whereas the framework prepared an updated contribution, which included input from the Ombudsman, for the UN CRPD Committee to help ensure that the Committee can complete in 2025 its periodic review of the EU’s implementation of the Convention, while respecting the fact that the EU is a regional organisation whose competences are based in the Treaties;

J. whereas 17 770 citizens were helped by the Ombudsman 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);

K. whereas in 2024, the majority of the inquiries concerned the Commission (270 inquiries, or 65.0 %), followed by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) (27 inquiries, or 6.5 %), the European External Action Service (16 inquiries or 3.9 %) and Frontex (14 inquiries, or 3.4 %); whereas the remaining inquiries were distributed as follows: the European Anti-Fraud Office (11 inquiries, or 2.6 %), Parliament (9 inquiries, or 2.2 %), 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 8.0 %) and other EU institutions or bodies (14 inquiries, or 3.4 %);

L. 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;

M. 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;

N. 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;

O. whereas in 2024, the Ombudsman made a series of recommendations to help the Commission ensure that 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 maintaining public trust that the EU administration will use AI responsibly; whereas the Ombudsman encouraged the Commission to reflect on what information it should 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;

P. whereas the Ombudsman’s role is instrumental in guaranteeing the protection of citizens’ rights arising from the EU Treaties and the Charter, 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;

Q. 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;

R. whereas the Ombudsman examined the continued use of corporate sponsorships by the rotating Presidency of the Council, as this practice has given rise to public disquiet regarding the potential influence that sponsors might be exerting on the EU decision-making process, particularly on deliberations concerning EU policy and legislation affecting such sponsors;

S. 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 regard;

T. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into how the Commission decided on the composition of the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group; whereas the Ombudsman found the Commission’s explanations for excluding civil society representatives, even with observer status, from this Group unconvincing;

U. whereas the Ombudsman conducted a complaint-based inquiry into the composition of the Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB), the outcome of which confirmed that 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;

V. 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);

W. 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, suggesting that the Commission develop a dedicated webpage, publish information and documents about upcoming pesticide events as soon as they become available and ensure that all relevant stakeholders have the opportunity to express their views; whereas the Ombudsman considered public concern surrounding the organisation of industry-only workshops legitimate, as they are perceived as an occasion for industry to disproportionately influence the Commission’s work;

X. 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;

Y. whereas the Ombudsman inquired into how the Commission handled concerns regarding guidelines developed by a European Reference Network for rare diseases by facilitating discussions between healthcare providers 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;

Z. 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 more problematic in the case of legislative documents;

AA. 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[3] 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 fully adhering to this principle;

AB. whereas the Ombudsman carried out several complaint-based inquiries related to the use of remote testing by 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 the Ombudsman also criticised EPSO for often providing complainants with contradictory information on how to prove they had faced problems and for rejecting complaints even when candidates had followed the instructions for reporting technical issues;

AC. whereas the Ombudsman conducted an inquiry following deaths in the Mediterranean Sea and suggested the establishment of an EU accountability mechanism that could independently investigate the respective roles of national authorities, Frontex and the Commission;

AD. 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’s ability to scrutinise 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 worried about the Commission’s breach of the legally binding deadlines for preparing authorisation decisions concerning dangerous chemical substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); underlines that respecting these deadlines is essential to ensure the protection of human health and the environment, and legal certainty and predictability in the EU’s decision-making process; stresses that, in order to address the health and environmental risks posed by PFAS, the Commission should not only coordinate with Member States, their national and local authorities, but also with relevant civil society organisations, academic and scientific institutions, which play an essential role in this field;

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, including by revising its internal procedures to ensure that it can take swifter decisions on these applications, in line with the goals of the Regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH)[4], to protect human health and the environment; is convinced that the Commission should implement the recommendations resulting from the Ombudsman’s inquiry, including the one concerning applications that lack all of the necessary information;

6. Stresses that the Commission should improve the rules on the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides in order to better take into account effective, safe non-chemical alternatives; calls on the Commission to ensure that the approval process is fully transparent and follows strict safeguards against conflicts of interest, duly taking into account the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement;

7. Stresses that the EU institutions must guarantee transparency of, and the highest adequate 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, as also stipulated in CJEU case-law; emphasises that the EU institutions, agencies, bodies and offices must ensure transparency of political negotiations, while taking into account the need for their efficient conduct and adherence to the highest ethical standards in their interactions with private stakeholders;

8. Highlights the importance of the Ombudsman’s activities in increasing transparency and helping to improve the balanced composition of the Commission’s expert groups, in particular the EU Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, given the high economic, social and environmental stakes involved with regard to energy policies; notes that the Commission decided not to include civil society representatives in this Group; is of the opinion that EU citizens should be informed of the profiles of all members of the expert groups;

9. 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 set out in its related communication;

10. Notes the Ombudsman’s ongoing inquiry into how the Commission prepared a proposal to amend legislation related to the common agricultural policy without conducting an impact assessment and with limited consultation of stakeholders, in particular farmers; emphasises the need to uphold the principles of evidence-based decision-making, as enshrined in the Commission’s better regulation guidelines and toolbox, as well as in case-law;

11. Expresses its appreciation for the Ombudsman’s work in urging the Commission to guarantee the participation of all economic, social and environmental stakeholders in its decision-making process, and in helping to ensure the integrity of that process;

12. Calls on the Ombudsman to examine the Commission’s practice of financing environmental non-governmental organisations that subsequently lobby Parliament and the Commission to further green policies; stresses that such practices risk creating conflicts of interest, distort the democratic process and undermine the legitimacy of EU decision-making;

13. Considers it essential that the Commission takes into consideration the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improving its handling of conflicts of interest involving its Commissioners, with a view to safeguarding the integrity of the decision-making process; highlights, in this context, the Ombudsman’s contribution towards enhancing the ethics and transparency of EU institutions in relation to revolving doors policy, cooling-off periods and potential conflicts of interest in cases where former Commissioners and former senior staff of EU institutions or agencies take up new jobs in the private sector;

14. 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 a governing rule and a fundamental priority; calls on the Commission to improve the way it handles such requests and to address systemic delays, including through the use of digital tools and simplified procedures; underlines that citizens’ right of public access to information applies to written, physical and electronic documents, and to audio and audiovisual recordings related to the 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[5];

15. Notes that 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;

16. Stresses that Frontex must operate within the provisions enshrined in its regulation[6], including the obligations related to fundamental rights and compliance with relevant international law; takes note of the reform of the Frontex mandate announced by the President of the Commission for 2026; expects that reinforcing the mandate, resources and budget of Frontex will ensure that the agency can perform its work under the best possible conditions in order to better support the Member States, including in search and rescue operations;

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

18. Notes the Ombudsman’s commitment to fundamental rights; 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);

19. Regrets 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; recalls that citizens should be able to scrutinise the Commission’s work on legislative proposals; underlines that transparency is of particular importance in this context, as the proposal directly touches on the protection of children, citizens’ fundamental rights and private life;

20. Takes note of the Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry into the Commission’s 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 before the CJEU (T-634/24), where the same issues are raised; underlines the importance of basing any decision regarding the legal protection status of wolves on scientific evidence and the protection of rural communities;

21. 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 to uphold the highest transparency and accountability standards;

22. Appreciates the Ombudsman’s series of suggestions to help the Commission ensure that its use of AI in decision-making remains accountable; stresses that EU institutions must maintain effective human oversight over AI systems and ensure that their use complies with the principles of transparency and accountability and with fundamental rights; believes that decision-making should not be delegated to these systems; stresses the importance of providing adequate training to public officials responsible for overseeing 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 conducting public consultations on the development of new AI tools; calls on the Ombudsman to continue monitoring developments in this field;

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 implementing the provisions of the UN CRPD, the achievement of many accessibility targets is still delayed and insufficiently effective; recommends that the Ombudsman intervene to examine and accelerate measures on accessibility and reasonable accommodations within the EU institutions and to examine whether people with disabilities are proportionally represented in the institutions;

24. Stresses the importance of close cooperation between the Ombudsman, the national and regional ombudsmen gathered in the European Network of Ombudsmen, and the administrations of Member States, with a view to promoting good administration, transparency and the protection of citizens’ rights across the EU; encourages further exchanges of best practices and joint initiatives to strengthen citizens’ trust in both EU and national institutions; encourages the Ombudsman to also strengthen cooperation with the ombudsman institutions of EU candidate countries;

25. Notes with concern the deficiencies identified by the Ombudsman in the functioning of EPSO; is alarmed by the Ombudsman’s conclusions of multiple cases of maladministration due to EPSO’s mishandling of candidate complaints, in particular concerning remote testing procedures and platform deficiencies, often providing complainants with contradictory information, demonstrating a lack of flexibility, and taking unreasonable decisions; calls on EPSO to take all necessary measures to urgently remedy all its shortcomings in order to restore the integrity, transparency and accountability of its recruitment procedures;

26. Appreciates that, following the Ombudsman’s decisions, EPSO decided to give four complainants the opportunity to retake their tests; notes that, 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 their tests; recalls that, in response to a suggestion and remarks by the Ombudsman, EPSO stated that it will ensure that the functionality of tools used by candidates during tests can be reviewed retroactively and that, in the future, candidates automatically receive a copy of their answers along with the correct answers after testing;

27. 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;

28. 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.


 

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

 

The Chair in his capacity as rapporteur, acting after the vote in PETI on 28

January 2026 and the subsequent withdrawal of the previous rapporteur, declares under his

exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be

mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


INFORMATION ON ADOPTION BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Date adopted

28.1.2026

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

11

6

9

 


 

 

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

11

+

ESN

Petras Gražulis, Marcin Sypniewski

PPE

Peter Agius, Fredis Beleris, Alexander Bernhuber, Daniel Caspary, Gheorghe Falcă, Elena Nevado del Campo, Nicolás Pascual de la Parte

Renew

Michał Kobosko, Eugen Tomac

 

6

-

ECR

Paolo Inselvini, Bogdan Rzońca, Diego Solier, Ivaylo Valchev, Kosma Złotowski

NI

Maria Zacharia

 

9

0

PfE

Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Annamária Vicsek

S&D

Sandra Gómez López, Murielle Laurent, Sandro Ruotolo, Nils Ušakovs

The Left

Damien Carême

Verts/ALE

Cristina Guarda, Ana Miranda Paz

 

Key to symbols:

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstention

 

 

Last updated: 25 February 2026
Legal notice - Privacy policy