On the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2025

The annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2025 was formally submitted to the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, on 28 April 2026 and the Ombudsman, Ms Teresa Anjinho, presented the report to the Committee on Petitions in Brussels on 6 May 2026.

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 2025, 25 041 citizens addressed the Ombudsman, of whom 20 182 were given advice through the Interactive Guide on the Ombudsman’s website, while 910 requests for information were replied to by the Ombudsman’s services, 459 email complaints were redirected to the online form, with guidance on the Ombudsman mandate and 3 490 were handled by the Ombudsman as complaints.

Out of the total number of 3 490 complaints processed by the Ombudsman in 2025 (54% more than in 2024), 1 241 fell within the Ombudsman’s mandate and 2 249 fell outside the scope of the Ombudsman’s mandate.

In 2025, the European Ombudsman processed 2 249 complaints that did not fall within her mandate, mostly because they did not concern the work of the EU administration. Nearly 32% of such complaints came from Spain, Germany and Poland. The out of mandate complaints related to public services and administrative transparency were the most frequent while others were related to a range of issues and institutions including national courts, healthcare, and the free movement of people. Some out of mandate complaints concerned EU institutions but were related to political or legislative work. Finally, the Ombudsman received several mass complaints that fell outside the mandate, concerning situation in the Middle East, the Readiness 2030 European defence initiative and the annulment of the 2024 presidential elections in Romania.

In the cases of the out of mandate complaints, the Ombudsman clarified its mandate and advised complainants, as far as possible, to turn to other bodies that could help. These would usually be national and regional ombudsman institutions, but also national public authorities, rights and consumer protection organisations in Member States and, where suitable, also 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.

A key improvement was the introduction in October 2025 of a structured process for complaints received by email which was decisive in reducing the proportion of out-of-mandate complaints from approximately 67% in the first 10 months of the year to 47% in November and December 2025.

In 2025, the Ombudsman’s Office opened 492 inquiries, of which 480 were complaint-based, 11 were own-initiative inquiries and 1 strategic inquiry, while closing 405 inquiries (398 complaint-based, 4 own-initiative inquiries and 3 strategic inquires).

Most of the overall Ombudsman’s inquiries concerned the Commission (293 inquiries or 59.6%), while the next largest number concerned the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) (36 inquiries or 7.3%), the European External Action Service (EEAS) (22 inquiries or 4.5%) and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX) (18 inquiries or 3.7%). The rest were distributed as follows: the European Parliament (16 inquiries or 3.2%), the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (EUROPOL) (12 inquiries or 2.5%), the European Anti-Fraud Office (9 inquiries or 1.8%), the European Investment Bank (9 inquiries or 1.8%), the European Union Agency for Asylum (5 inquiries or 1.0%), the European Central Bank (5 inquiries or 1.0%) and other EU institutions or bodies (67 inquiries or 13.6%). As part of its strategic work in 2025 concerning systemic issues in the EU institutions, the Ombudsman opened a strategic inquiry into how EU agencies deal with ‘revolving door’ cases as well as closed 3 strategic inquiries (2 on accountability matters and 1 on risk management of dangerous chemical substances) and 1 strategic initiative (on comprehensive coverage for disability-related health needs in the context of revised rules governing the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme, JSIS, for EU staff).

The inquiries closed by the European Ombudsman in 2025 were settled by the institution in 255 cases (63%), there was no maladministration found in 74 cases (18.3%) and in 17 cases (4.2%) the Ombudsman found maladministration.

The length of inquiry of cases closed by the European Ombudsman in 2025 was 5 months on average. 224 cases (55%) were closed within 3 months, 134 cases (33%) were closed within 3 to 12 months, 32 cases (8%) were closed within 12 to 18 months and only 15 cases (4%) were closed after more than 18 months.

Out of 3 490 new complaints dealt with in 2025, in 2 008 cases (57.5%) the European Ombudsman gave its advice or transferred it to another complaints body, in 1 002 cases (28.7%), a reply was sent to inform the complainant that no further advice could be given and in 480 cases (13.8%) an inquiry was opened.

The acceptance rate (the percentage of positive replies to the total number of proposals by the Ombudsman) for 2025, which covers cases closed in 2024, was 72%. 89% of solution proposals and 78% of suggestions for improvement were accepted.

The top three concerns in the inquiries closed by the Ombudsman in 2025 were transparency and accountability (38.1%), culture of service (18.3%) and proper management of infringement procedures (11.9%). Other concerns include recruitment, proper use of discretion (including in infringement procedures), good management of personnel issues, respect for procedural rights, grants, procurement, contracts, respect for fundamental rights, ethics, public participation in EU decision making, whistleblowing and sound financial management.

 Participatory decision making

Participatory decision making was a key matter for the European Ombudsman Office in 2025 as civil society organisations filed complaints about the way the European Commission simplified existing legislation or introduced new legislation to meet new policy priorities.

The Ombudsman issued a finding of maladministration concerning procedural shortcomings in the way four pieces of legislation concerning corporate sustainability reporting for companies, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and countering migrant smuggling were prepared. In particular, the Ombudsman found that the Commission adopted a broad interpretation of ‘urgency’, failed to sufficiently justify it and to document its derogations from the applicable Better Regulation rules. It also identified lack of procedure to ensure that urgent preparation of legislative proposals still complies with the principles of a transparent, evidence-based and inclusive law-making process and indicated that without mandatory consistency checks of its proposals with the EU’s climate goals, the Commission failed to act in an accountable manner. To address these issues, the Ombudsman issued a series of recommendations and suggestions, which include clarifying its stakeholder consultation rules for urgent proposals and ensuring that the evidence supporting its proposals is published in good time to enable a public debate before legislation is adopted.

In addition, following an inquiry by the Ombudsman office, the European Investment Bank (EIB) took a decision to proactively publish more environmental and social assessments for projects located outside the EU that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment ahead of the financing decisions adoption.

 Accountability in decision making

In September 2025, the European Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how the European Commission ensures transparency, inclusiveness and accountability in the adoption of harmonised standards for artificial intelligence (AI). The main concerns relate to failure to be proactively transparent in EU decision making as well as failure to ensure balanced representation of interests in the standardisation process. While the inquiry is still ongoing, the Ombudsman has asked the Commission to reply to a series of questions concerning matters such as the composition of the group preparing the standards, the transparency rules applied by standardisation bodies, how the Commission is managing and monitoring the standardisation process, and how it will review its outcomes.

Case of maladministration was identified in own-initiative inquiry concerning the European Commission decision process on applications submitted by companies for authorisations of particularly dangerous chemical substances under the EU Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (the ‘REACH Regulation’). More specifically, the Ombudsman found that, while the statutory deadline is of three months, it took the Commission on average 14.5 months and, in some cases, several years to prepare draft decisions for granting or refusing authorisation. Moreover, the decision-making process lacked transparency. While accepting the request for publishing of more meaningful summary records of the meetings of the ‘REACH Committee’, the Commission did not address the call to review its lengthy internal procedures. The Ombudsman reiterated the need to fully implement the goals of the REACH regulation and avoid lengthy delays.

 Transparency

Transparency and in particular access to documents remained the largest area of the Ombudsman’s work in 2025. The Office continued to work towards rigorous application of EU access-to-documents rules, ensuring that requests are handled promptly and that any refusals are properly justified.

A notable inquiry concerned the European Commission’s refusal to give public access to a risk assessment report submitted by social media platform X under the Digital Services Act. The Ombudsman found maladministration in the Commission’s refusal based on a general presumption of non-disclosure and recommended an individual assessment of the document for disclosure aimed at granting the widest possible access.

The Ombudsman found maladministration in the Commission’s handling of access request for a text message sent by the French President to the Commission President concerning Mercosur trade negotiations. She therefore recommended a review and improved handling of public access requests involving the Cabinet of the President or of any Commissioner as well as adapting its internal rules to preservation of documents. Moreover, all text and instant messages exchanged between Heads of State or Government, or ministers, and Members of the Commission are to be duly kept, for a reasonable period.

Delays in responding to access-to-documents requests remained a recurring concern. In one case, the Commission took almost a year to respond to a request for review concerning access to cybersecurity-related meeting minutes, despite ultimately granting broad access to the documents.

Finally, several other inquiries led to greater transparency and wider public access to documents. These included obtaining fuller disclosure of documents related to the rule of law procedure concerning Hungary, significantly expanding access to documents held by the European Union Agency for Asylum related to reception conditions in several Cypriot migration management facilities, securing broader disclosure of Europol’s exchanges on combatting online child sexual abuse legislation (CSAM), and prompting the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) to improve its procedures for handling access requests by providing a list of documents with no or very limited access.

 Integrity standards

In 2025, the Ombudsman Office continued its work to strengthen integrity and conflict-of-interest safeguards across the EU administration.

A new own-initiative inquiry examines how 15 EU agencies manage “revolving door” cases involving senior staff and management board members moving to roles in the private sector. It seeks to promote a common understanding and application of conflict-of-interest rules across EU agencies, with results expected in 2026.

The Ombudsman also welcomed the European Commission’s robust handling of a revolving door case involving a former competition official. After assessing actual, potential, and perceived conflicts of interest, the Commission concluded that the former official should not work on a specific competition case for their new employer.

In follow up to a separate inquiry, the Commission strengthened conflict-of-interest checks for external experts evaluating European Defence Fund projects. New measures require experts to disclose family links to the defence industry and financial interests in defence companies, while enhanced IT tools help identify potential conflicts automatically.

The Ombudsman further welcomed measures introduced by the Commission to improve transparency and oversight of staff work trips funded by third parties. The Commission agreed to systematically record information on sponsors, costs covered, and assessments of potential or perceived conflicts of interest, helping to ensure that such travel does not compromise impartiality.

 Fundamental rights

In 2025, the Ombudsman Office closed an inquiry into the European Commission’s monitoring of EU border management funds in Greece, recommending stronger safeguards for assessing compliance with fundamental rights, greater transparency, and enhanced civil society involvement. The Commission committed to working with the Greek authorities to strengthen monitoring and increase transparency.

In response to a separate inquiry concerning the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding, the Commission stated that it would encourage EU delegations, implementing partners, and partner countries to take steps to uphold human rights, including establishing complaints mechanisms for alleged violations.

The Ombudsman also found maladministration in the Commission’s handling of a long-running infringement procedure against Spain concerning compliance with EU environmental noise rules. Given the excessive delay, including a three-year period with no apparent action, and major public health implications, the Ombudsman Office stressed the need to deal with this infringement procedure as a matter of priority.

In addition, following an inquiry into the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Ombudsman asked OLAF to provide clear and timely information to a person concerned of the closure of an investigation on the possibility to turn to the Controller of Procedural Guarantees. The recommendation followed a case in which unclear information caused a firm to miss the deadline for submitting a complaint, leading to its rejection.

 EU personnel

In 2025, a number of complaints concerned the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO). While the Ombudsman found that EPSO acted reasonably in several inquiries, one case of maladministration was found in relation to technical issues during remote testing in a staff selection procedure. Another maladministration case was identified in how EPSO dealt with a request from a candidate to reschedule an oral test. In different inquiry, a suggestion was made that EPSO in future gives clear and complete replies to candidates requesting for review.

 Grants

In the case involving the European Commission, the Ombudsman found maladministration in the rejection of a grant application based on an obvious clerical error and concluded that the Commission had failed to adequately assess allegations of a potential conflict of interest in the grant award process. The Ombudsman suggested that the Commission should ensure that, if it becomes aware of a potential conflict of interest in a call for proposals, it adequately investigates the allegations in that regard.

Artificial Intelligence

In 2025, the Ombudsman Office began integrating AI to improve efficiency and responsiveness while upholding principles of good administration, accountability, and transparency. To oversee this effort, it established a cross-departmental AI taskforce, appointed a dedicated AI officer, and participated in the European Data Protection Supervisor’s AI correspondents’ network. Moreover, the Ombudsman published an AI notice explaining how AI is used, the safeguards in place, and the rights of citizens interacting with the Office.

In addition, the Office launched a pilot project using GPT@EC, a generative AI system developed by the European Commission, to support administrative and case-handling tasks, including improving draft documents, researching legislation and summarising and analysing large files. Before implementation, strong governance measures were introduced with human oversight remaining the central principle and a Service Level Agreement with the European Commission concluded to ensure that Ombudsman data remain protected and are not used to train AI models. Top of FormBottom of Form

Relations with the European Parliament

Constructive cooperation between the European Ombudsman and the European Parliament continued throughout 2025. Following her election, the Ombudsman met with the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, to discuss shared priorities as well as with several MEPs to raise awareness of the Office’s role and work. Moreover, she participated in a number of committee meetings, hearings and events, including a meeting with the Heads of the European Parliament’s Liaison Offices (EPLOs). In June 2025, besides presenting the Annual Report for 2024 to the Committee on Petitions, the Ombudsman outlined the principles behind her Strategy for 2025-2029 aiming at building a constructive bridge between the European citizens and EU institutions.

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

As a member of the EU Framework for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Ombudsman played close attention to the EU administration’s implementation of the UN CRPD.

In 2025, the Ombudsman dealt with several inquiries related to the rights of persons with disabilities, most notably concerning EU recruitment and staff matters, such as an inquiry on how the Commission deals with complaints about discrimination based on disability as well as the implementation of reasonable accommodation. In addition, jointly with EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, the Office conducted a survey among EU agencies focusing on rights of persons with disabilities. In addition, the Ombudsman’s Office presented its work related to the rights of persons with disabilities at several events throughout the year 2025, including in the annual workshop on the rights of persons with disabilities, organised by the Committee on Petitions in the framework of Disability Rights Week.

European Network of Ombudsmen

The European Network of Ombudsmen (ENO), coordinated by the European Ombudsman, brings together more than 95 ombudsman institutions and similar bodies across Europe, along with the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions. In 2025, the network continued to facilitate cooperation and knowledge-sharing on issues affecting citizens’ rights and the application of EU law. The annual ENO conference in November 2025 looked into barriers for intra-EU mobility, monitoring compliance with EU law, preserving ombudsman independence, dealing with environmental complaints, oversight of semi-private and semi-public administration, citizens’ rights protection, evolving role of ombudsmen in migration and asylum complaints, and regulatory simplification.

Ombudsman 30 Year Anniversary

In 2025, the European Ombudsman Office celebrated its 30th anniversary through a range of outreach and communication activities, highlighting three decades of work to promote fairness, protect citizens’ rights, and strengthen the relationship between the European Union and its people. These efforts included a “Did You Know?” campaign showcasing key facts about the Office’s mission, history, and operations as well as various exhibitions, including one held at the European Parliament during a plenary session.

The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not include in his 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