—

having regard to the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2021,

—

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 (UNCRPD),

—

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 (1),

—

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 its resolution of 9 March 2022 on engaging with citizens: the right to petition, the right to refer to the European Ombudsman and the European Citizens’ Initiative (2),

—

having regard to Rules 54 and 232(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A9-0054/2023),

A.

whereas the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2021 was formally submitted to the President of Parliament on 7 June 2022 and the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O’Reilly, presented the report to the Committee on Petitions in Brussels on 8 September 2022;

B.

whereas Articles 20, 24 and 228 TFEU and Article 43 of the Charter 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 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’; whereas ensuring that high-quality services are provided to EU citizens and that the EU administration is responsive to their needs and concerns is crucial in protecting citizens’ rights and fundamental freedoms;

D.

whereas Article 41 of the Charter on the right to good administration states, inter alia, 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’;

E.

whereas Article 298(1) TFEU establishes 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’;

F.

whereas the right to refer to the European Ombudsman, the right to petition and the European Citizens’ Initiative are participatory tools that foster transparency, participatory democracy and active European citizenship;

G.

whereas in 2021 the Ombudsman helped 20 536 people and opened 338 inquiries, of which 332 were complaint-based and 6 own-initiative, and closed 305 inquiries (300 complaint-based and 5 own-initiative); whereas the greater part of the inquiries concerned the Commission (208 inquiries or 61,5 %); whereas the next largest numbers concerned the European External Action Service (EEAS) (16 inquiries or 4,7 %), Parliament (13 inquiries or 3,8 %), the European Personnel Selection Office (13 inquiries or 3,8 %), the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (11 inquiries or 3,3 %), the European Medicines Agency (8 inquiries or 2,4 %), the Council of the European Union (7 inquiries or 2,1 %), the European Anti-Fraud Office (6 inquiries or 1,8 %), and other institutions (34 inquiries or 10,1 %);

H.

whereas the top three concerns in the inquiries closed by the Ombudsman in 2021 were transparency and accountability (access to information and documents) (29 %), culture of service (26 %) and proper use of discretionary powers (including in infringement procedures) (18 %); whereas other concerns include respect for procedural rights, respect for fundamental rights, good management of personnel issues, sound financial management, public participation in EU decision-making, ethical issues, and whistleblowing on the EU administration;

I.

whereas in its strategic work in 2021, the Ombudsman’s Office opened six new strategic inquires: on how the Commission manages ‘revolving doors’ moves of its staff members; on the transparency of the Commission’s interactions with representatives of the tobacco industry; on how Frontex complies with its fundamental rights obligations and ensures accountability in relation to its enhanced responsibilities; on how the European Defence Agency handled the application by its former chief executive to take on a senior position at Airbus; on how the Commission monitors EU funds used to promote the right of persons with disabilities and older persons to independent living; and on how the European Investment Bank holds certain personal information of job applicants before making recruitment decisions;

J.

whereas in a broad inquiry into ‘revolving doors’ covering a sample of 100 decisions taken by the Commission in 2019-2021, the Ombudsman found that the Commission had prohibited only two activities;

K.

whereas 2021 marked the twentieth anniversary of the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (3) (Transparency Regulation) on public access to documents; whereas in 2021 the Ombudsman made access to documents a focus for the Office throughout the year, as transparency remains the leading topic of complaints and the priority for her work; whereas the Ombudsman hosted a public conference on how the Transparency Regulation should be modernised to meet the public needs in this area;

L.

whereas the CJEU has ruled several times that openness in the legislative process is precisely what contributes to conferring greater legitimacy on the institutions in the eyes of EU citizens and increasing their confidence in them by allowing divergences between various points of view to be openly debated; whereas the CJEU has stipulated that it is in fact a lack of information and debate that can give rise to doubts in the minds of citizens and facilitate the spread of misinformation, not only about the lawfulness of an individual act, but also about the legitimacy of the entire decision-making process (4);

M.

whereas improving citizens’ participation and ensuring transparency at EU level are key to bridging the perceived gap between the EU, its institutions, its citizens and representative organisations, overcoming citizens’ low trust and confidence levels in EU institutions and achieving a real multilevel democracy; whereas the Ombudsman plays a key role in bridging this gap;

N.

whereas citizens’ complaints to the Ombudsman are an essential component of participatory democracy and of the legitimacy of the Union’s decision-making process as they promote transparency and good administration in the EU institutions and bodies; whereas the role of the Ombudsman has developed over the years allows them now to use own-initiative powers to help tackle systemic problems in the EU administration and make recommendations for improvement with a view to resolving the problems in various cases of maladministration, thus taking on an increasingly important role in citizens’ lives when it comes to issues such as the environment, migration and health;

O.

whereas in cases when a complaint falls outside her mandate, the Ombudsman should advise the complainant to refer it to another authority or to the Committee on Petitions;

P.

whereas the CJEU has highlighted that the democratic model adopted by the EU has two dimensions: representative democracy, based on Article 10 (1) and (2) TEU, and participative democracy, based on Article 10 (3) TEU; whereas the first dimension implies that the representatives of citizens are accountable for the decisions they take and the second dimension enables citizens to participate in the decisional process; whereas the CJEU has stipulated that transparency is pertinent in both dimensions (5);

Q.

whereas in its strategic work in 2021, the Ombudsman’s Office opened its own new and strategic initiatives on how the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies record text and instant messages sent/received by staff members in their professional capacity; on artificial intelligence and the EU administration; on the EU administration’s duty to inform the public about how to exercise the right of public access to EU documents; on the transparency of the EU portal for managing tenders for contracts awarded by EU institutions; on the Commission’s transparency obligations in the context of the forthcoming review of EU tobacco legislation; on how the Commission makes available information about meetings between commissioners and organisations or self-employed individuals; and on how the Commission ensures respect for human rights in the context of international trade agreements;

R.

whereas the CJEU, when referring to giving the public the widest possible right of access to EU documents, has stated that openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinise all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act; whereas the CJEU has argued that the possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights (6);

S.

whereas the CJEU has interpreted Article 10 (3) TEU to mean that, in a system based on the principle of democratic legitimacy, co-legislators must be held accountable for their actions to the public; whereas the CJEU has stipulated that, if citizens are to be able to exercise their democratic rights, they must be in a position to follow in detail the decision-making process within the institutions taking part in the legislative procedures and to have access to all relevant information (7);