Introduction

The two distinct principles are democratic essentials that cannot be reduced to technical measures alone. Nor should they be understood to represent “drawing board” targets alone.

Efficiency stands for the best use of resources in terms of time, cost and effort, in short: “doing things right”.  Good administration requires improvement of procedures to enable public services to become more accessible to more people.

Effectiveness is the achievement of targeted results, in short: “doing the right things”. 

In practice

The Ombudsman does not manage the public administration.  However, by means of its investigations the Office can help identify systems that fail and can stimulate the public authorities to improve their operations.

By means of his investigations, the Ombudsman can highlight weaknesses, identify systemic problems and recommend improvements. 

Day-to-day 

A public body is effective when it provides services that meet real needs, avoids unnecessary red-tape, acts within a reasonable time, and corrects mistakes when they occur.

Effectiveness is measured on everyday experience: applying for a permit, accessing healthcare, receiving educational support, or obtaining a pension. When processes are clear and staff are responsive, trust grows. When files are misplaced or lost, decisions are delayed, or rules are applied inconsistently, confidence in the administration of public affairs is shaken.

People do notice when public services work well and when they do not. There is effectiveness when public authorities deliver results, use resources wisely, and serve people without unnecessary delay.  

One of the most common issues raised with the Ombudsman concerns delay. Delays are not just inconvenient but can cause burden: a delayed permit can bring business to a halt; a delayed educational decision can affect a child’s development; the delayed payment of a benefit can cause financial hardship.

The Ombudsman consistently stresses that public authorities have a duty to act within a reasonable time. Even when a final decision cannot be made immediately, people are entitled to updates, explanations, and clear timelines. Silence or inaction is not good administration.

Through investigations, the Ombudsman often finds that bad faith is not the cause of delays, but that the source of delays are unclear responsibilities, poor coordination between departments, or outdated procedures. By recommending better internal communication or revision of procedures, the Ombudsman helps authorities become more efficient without compromising legality or fairness.

Learning

An important aspect of effectiveness is the ability of public bodies to learn from mistakes. The Ombudsman encourages public bodies to see complaints as opportunities to improve. When an investigation reveals that a department repeatedly misapplies a rule, the Ombudsman may recommend staff training or more clear internal guidance. When a procedure generates confusion, one could suggest simplifying forms or improving public information. These changes can significantly reduce future complaints and improve service delivery.

Effectiveness is not achieved by rigidly defending existing practices, but by being open to evaluation and reform. A system that listens and adapts becomes more efficient.

Social dimension

Effectiveness has a social dimension. Public services must work not only for those who are confident, well-informed, or persistent, but for everyone—including older persons, people with disabilities, migrants, and those unfamiliar with administrative procedures.

The Ombudsman is there to ensure that vulnerable persons are not placed at a disadvantage. When procedures are inaccessible or too technical, efficiency suffers because people are excluded or forced to seek repeated assistance. Simplifying processes and communicating clearly improves outcomes.

Improvement

Efficient service delivery is fundamental to public trust. When people see that government institutions respond promptly, correct errors, and improve their performance, confidence of the public increases.  Persistent inefficiency makes people cynical by believing that “nothing works” or that complaints are pointless. By offering an independent, accessible avenue for redress, the Ombudsman tries to help break through negative cycles. 

Effectiveness is not achieved overnight. It is built through consistent attention to how decisions are made, how services are delivered, and how institutions respond when things go wrong.

Conclusion

Through its investigations, recommendations, and ongoing dialogue with public authorities, the Ombudsman helps ensure that power is exercised not only lawfully and fairly, but well. In doing so, the Office strengthens the public administration and reinforces a simple but powerful idea: government exists to serve the people, and it must do so effectively.

El Defensor del Pueblo de Navarra, Patxi Vera, ha constatado un incremento significativo en el número de reclamaciones presentadas por la ciudadanía, que han aumentado más de un 20% en el último año. Así lo ha señalado durante su participación en el espacio de colaboración que la institución mantiene con Radio Nacional de España (RNE) en Navarra.

Según ha explicado, este incremento responde en gran medida a una mayor visibilidad y cercanía de la institución. “En estos tres últimos años nos hemos entrevistado con más de 80 entidades sociales porque veíamos que muchas personas no sabían que podían venir al Defensor del Pueblo a presentar su problemática”, ha afirmado Vera.

En cuanto al tipo de quejas, el Defensor ha destacado su gran diversidad, ya que abarcan prácticamente todos los ámbitos de actuación de las Administraciones.

Respecto a la relación con estas, el Defensor del Pueblo ha recordado que todas están obligadas a responder a sus requerimientos, aunque no siempre acepten sus resoluciones.

En los casos en los que no hay acuerdo, las discrepancias quedan reflejadas en el informe anual que la institución remite al Parlamento de Navarra, reforzando así su labor de supervisión y defensa de los derechos de la ciudadanía.

Le 4 décembre dernier, Sciences Po Grenoble et l’École de journalisme de Grenoble organisaient la « journée de l’alerte », un événement consacré aux enjeux contemporains liés aux lanceurs d’alerte. Cécile Barrois de Sarigny, adjointe de la Défenseure des droits en charge de l’accompagnement des lanceurs d’alerte, est intervenue pour présenter le rôle et les actions de l’institution dans ce domaine.

Au cours de l’après-midi, trois tables rondes ont été animées dans les locaux de l’Institut d’études politiques de Grenoble.

Enseignants-chercheurs, juristes, acteurs de terrain, journalistes et étudiants ont échangé autour de thématiques illustrant la diversité des situations d’alerte : 

• Argent public détourné : entre corruption et prise illégale d’intérêt ;
• Santé publique : quel contrôle du médicament ? ; 
• Empoisonnés par notre environnement ? Naître sans bras, mourir de la pollution.

Ces discussions ont permis de mettre en lumière plusieurs parcours de lanceurs d’alerte, ainsi que la nécessité de leur garantir une protection effective contre les mesures de représailles.

Dans la continuité de ces témoignages, l’intervention de Cécile Barrois de Sarigny est venue éclairer le rôle concret du Défenseur des droits dans l’accompagnement des lanceurs d’alerte. L’adjointe de la Défenseure des droits a rappelé le rôle central que l’institution joue dans la protection des lanceurs d’alerte et en a présenté les missions et les pouvoirs.

Le Défenseur des droits rendra public le 28 mai 2026 son deuxième rapport bisannuel sur la protection des lanceurs d’alerte.

Visionnez les conférences sur la page Youtube de Sciences Po Grenoble-UGA

On March 10^th, Their Royal Highnesses the Grand Duke Guillaume and the Grand Duchess Stéphanie of Luxembourg visited the Ombudsman, Claudine Konsbruck.
During the visit, the Ombudsman and her team presented the missions of the institution to the Grand-Ducal Couple, as well as the main challenges encountered in their daily work.

They exchanged on specific cases related to immigration, housing problems, social supports and on the increasing numbers of complaints  .

2024 European Ombudsman annual report

Speech - Speaker Teresa Anjinho - Date Thursday | 12 March 2026

Ombudswoman Anjinho's presentation during the European Parliament plenary debate on the 2024 European Ombudsman Annual Report

Opening statement

Honourable Members of the Parliament,

It is my pleasure to present the European Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 2024.

Recent years have been challenging for our Union. EU institutions have had to navigate a turbulent geopolitical context marked by conflict, unpredictability, and shifting alliances.

In response, the EU is acting in more areas and with greater intensity — from defence to digital regulation.

But as the Union does more and moves faster, we must ensure that transparency, accountability, and participation are not weakened.

The Ombudsman’s work offers a barometer of how citizens experience the EU — where institutions serve them well and where they must do better.

I know that the Parliament shares this vision and commitment. The report that is discussed and voted each year is no mere formality. It’s an important evaluation of our common effort to stand — together — for citizens’ rights.

Looking back at 2024, one issue stands out clearly: transparency.

Complaints about access to documents rose sharply, from around 30 percent in previous years to over 40 percent.

Many concerned delays and, in response, in March 2024, this Parliament unanimously approved a special report urging the Commission to address this problem.

That same year, we also concluded an own-initiative inquiry into how the Council and Commission handle requests for legislative documents. Both institutions have indicated a willingness to improve proactive transparency, which is welcome, but more progress is needed.

Citizens can only follow, scrutinise, and engage in decision-making if they have timely, meaningful access to information — and trust our institutions to deliver on their commitments in a clear, predictable way.

Unfortunately, still today, complaints remain high, pointing to a broader challenge. As the Union’s competences deepen, governance structures must also deepen to ensure real and meaningful transparency, which may require revisiting Regulation 1049/2001, 24 years after its adoption.

Another key area in 2024 was participation in decision-making, particularly compliance with safeguards such as impact assessments and public consultations.

The European Ombudsman received two complaints on how the Commission prepares urgent legislative proposals, concerning the Common Agricultural Policy and measures to counter migrant smuggling.

These cases raised an important question: how can the Commission act swiftly while ensuring good law-making — including predictability, transparency, and meaningful opportunities for participation?

Acting quickly can be necessary, but speed must go hand in hand with clear, transparent procedures that allow citizens and stakeholders to follow and engage.

Ultimately, this is about governance quality and preserving the Union’s standards of transparent, inclusive, and effective rulemaking, as established in EU law.

Turning to ethics and integrity, in 2024 two inquiries led us to make recommendations to the Commission to prevent conflicts of interest from staff work trips and to strengthen rules for external experts evaluating European Defence Fund projects. I am pleased that the Commission has made improvements in both areas.

It is also worth noting a strategic initiative on the use of sponsorship by Council Presidencies. While the Council’s efforts to implement its Guidance are welcome, some concerns remain, particularly regarding potential conflicts of interest.

Finally, an inquiry into the Commission’s procedures for authorising particularly dangerous chemical substances — meant to protect people and the environment — found that decisions were taking on average fourteen and a half months, sometimes several years, leaving dangerous substances on the market.

I urged the Commission to improve its procedures. Unfortunately, my recommendations were not implemented, and the inquiry was closed with a finding of maladministration. My Office will continue to monitor this issue.

Honourable members of Parliament,

Looking back, the trends we observed in 2024 persisted in 2025.

Institutions face a double pressure: internal demands on capacity and survival, and societal concern over exclusion, opacity, or a perceived lack of accountability.

This calls for a conscious recalibration of governance in line with the Union’s institutional identity, as provisioned in the treaties.

We live in a growing common European administrative space, with more shared interests as well as challenges. Ensuring trust in our institutions requires dialogue that is continuous, constructive, and credible. Dialogue like the one we are having today.

As European Ombudswoman, I am uniquely positioned to guarantee this dialogue — bridging institutions and citizens, and ensuring that transparency, participation, and accountability remain guiding values that make our Union strong, trusted, and enduring.

Thank you.

Closing Statement

Honourable Members of the European Parliament,

Thank you for the interventions and the lively debate on these important topics.

They reflect the real concerns many Europeans feel today in a fast-changing world. By listening to these concerns and responding with honesty, fairness, and empathy, we strengthen good administration and promote good governance in our Union.

In my hearing to become European Ombudswoman, I made a clear commitment: to build a strong, constructive relationship with this Parliament.

Today, I want to reaffirm that commitment - to a relationship grounded in mutual respect and one I will continue to deepen over the next four years.

As many of you know, I have already taken concrete steps in that direction: meeting Members from across the political spectrum and engaging in discussions with the Petitions Committee and other parliamentary committees.

In the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI), we discussed urgent decision-making and the need for strong EU administrative law.

In the Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE), we focused on the rule of law in the European Union.

And in the Committee on Public Health (SANT), we exchanged views on citizens’ access to cross-border healthcare.

These exchanges matter. They are not just formalities.

They also reflect a deeper belief: the challenges we face go far beyond narrow legal questions. They strike at the heart of my mandate - promoting good administration through fairness, transparency, and responsiveness - and making the Ombudsman a true guardian of European citizenship.

This is where the Ombudsman’s soft power comes into play. Rooted in independence, impartiality, and sound reasoning, it creates space for institutions to engage constructively with citizens’ concerns. In doing so, it strengthens resilience against disinformation and anti-democratic narratives - and rebuilds trust in the social contract.

That is why we prioritise individual complaints and focus on positive, solution-oriented relationships with all European stakeholders - reaching beyond Brussels and Strasbourg.

Over the past 12 months, I visited Poland, Spain, Malta, and the Netherlands to meet agencies, national ombudsmen, local and national representatives, civil society, academics, and students.

These meetings do more than strengthen cooperation or raise awareness. They make the EU more visible and more relatable to the people it serves.

Building robust partnerships at the national, regional, and local level is essential. We are increasingly part of a shared European administrative space, facing common challenges and opportunities. By working together, we create powerful synergies that benefit everyone involved.

But the scale of these challenges reminds me that I lead a small institution with a very big mandate. That is why my Strategy emphasizes operational excellence - ensuring we work efficiently, strengthen managerial capacity, and deliver results with maximum impact.

We are already adapting to evolving demands: strengthening our AI capabilities and ensuring technological advances are accompanied by sound safeguards.

These rapid digital developments - indeed - bring opportunities, but also challenges, including last year’s record number of complaints. A reality prompting us to reflect on whether our resources fully match our mandate, as set out in the Ombudsman Statute.

I am confident that Parliament will continue to support us, recognising that investing in this Office is an investment in the foundations of European democracy and in the trust of every citizen.

Honourable Members,

After one year in office, it is clear that trust does not require outcomes to always match expectations. What matters is that concerns are taken seriously, communicated honestly, and addressed reliably - because at the end of the day citizens do not want excuses, they want solutions.

Let us build on the first twelve months of my mandate and continue working together to strengthen our Union, empower our citizens, and uphold the values that bind us.