European Ombudsman

• The European Commission's alleged failure to ensure the cost-effectiveness of EU-funded development projects

  [...]

• Decision on the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency’s (CINEA) decision to terminate a grant agreement in the area of renewable transport and to recover the full amount of its financial contribution to the project (case 387/2025/JN)

  The case concerned the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency’s (CINEA) decision to terminate a grant agreement in the area of renewable transport and to recover the full amount of its financial contribution to the project.

  The Ombudsman found that CINEA had failed to follow the procedure set out in the grant agreement and that there were indications that CINEA’s decision may not have been entirely fair and proportionate. However, given the complainant´s insolvency and the fact that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has been investigating potential irregularities in the context of the project, CINEA cannot be expected to meaningfully review its decision at this stage. Therefore, the Ombudsman concluded that no further inquiries are justified and closed the case.

  The Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement to CINEA to ensure that similar issues do not arise in future cases.

• How the European Commission handled a complaint concerning its termination of a role as an Ambassador of the European Climate Pact

  [...]

• Decision on how the Council of the European Union dealt with a traineeship application (case 133/2026/LA)

  Dear Ms X, 

  You recently submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the Council of the European Union concerning the above issue.

  In your complaint, you stated that, after applying for the traineeship programme of the Council of the European Union, you were shortlisted and invited to submit supporting documents and to confirm your interest in the traineeship via email. However, you later learnt that, when you replied to the Council, your email was quarantined because it contained hyperlinks (to LinkedIn and Linktree) that the Council’s email gateway had identified as potentially malicious. As a result, the email was not forwarded to the hiring service, and despite being shortlisted, you were not invited for an interview.

  My Office opened an inquiry into the matter and, as a first step my inquiry team held a meeting on 10 March 2026 with the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union (GSC) to obtain information in relation to the case a

• Decision on the time taken by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to deal with two complaints (case 3454/2025/TM)

  The case concerned the time taken by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to decide on two complaints made by the same complainant in 2023 concerning the processing of the complainant’s personal data.

  In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the EDPS provided reasonable explanations concerning the handling of the cases and the delay. The EDPS has also finalised its preliminary assessment of the issues raised.

  The Ombudsman also noted that the EDPS took measures aimed at addressing its backlog to avoid similar situations in the future and therefore closed the case with the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified.