European Ombudsman

• The European Commission's refusal to give public access to an assessment of the 'do no significant harm' principle in a State aid procedure

  [...]

• The failure by the European Commission to reply to a complaint against France

  [...]

• Decision on the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s (Frontex) refusal to give public access to documents related to possible fundamental rights violations at the Bulgarian border (case 1279/2025/TM)

  The case concerned a request for public access to documents about alleged breaches of fundamental rights at the Bulgarian border with Türkiye. Participants in border management activities of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) have an obligation to report possible fundamental rights violations (‘serious incidents’) to Frontex’s  Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO). If, based on those ‘raw reports’, the FRO decides to carry out an investigation, it drafts a final report on the alleged incident (‘serious incident report’, SIR), setting out its findings and possible recommendations.

  In this case, the FRO carried out investigations into alleged breaches of fundamental rights by the Bulgarian border authorities and Frontex partially disclosed the respective SIRs. However, the complainant sought public access to the ‘raw reports’ of Frontex officers deployed in Bulgaria, which triggered the FRO’s investigations.

  Frontex identified four documents (emails with at

• How the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) dealt with a request for public access to documents regarding allegations against lobbyists

  [...]

• Decision on the European Anti-Fraud Office's (OLAF) partial refusal of public access to the case file and report from an investigation to the person concerned (case 1103/2024/MIK)

  The case concerned the European Anti-Fraud Office's (OLAF) decision to refuse public access to the contents of its investigation file concerning a closed case and to grant only partial access to the final report from this investigation. OLAF argued that full disclosure of the investigation file and final report would undermine the protection of personal data, the commercial interests of the companies concerned by the investigation, and the effectiveness of OLAF’s future investigations by revealing its methods and strategies. As regards the investigation file, OLAF applied a general presumption of non-disclosure, meaning that it refused to grant public access to the file without having conducted an individual assessment of the documents contained in it.

  The Ombudsman took the preliminary view that, according to case law, once OLAF’s investigation and related follow-up activities are closed, the general presumption of non-disclosure can only be applied to OLAF’s internal and pr