The European Ombudsman’s Activities in 2024

The report on the activities of the European Ombudsman for 2024 was drawn up by the Committee on Petitions (PETI) on its own initiative. It was not adopted: 233 MEPs voted in favour, 250 against and 76 abstained. As the report was rejected, no text was adopted, meaning that no resolution on the Ombudsman’s activities for 2024 was approved.

The split did not occur between the pro-European majority and the far right, but within the pro-European majority itself: the EPP voted in favour, the S&D and Greens/EFA against, and the majority of Renew also against.

The text focused largely on institutional issues: concerns that the Commission is failing to meet statutory deadlines for authorising hazardous chemicals, including PFAS; transparency in the approval of pesticides; and access to documents, including in relation to the proposal on combating child sexual abuse.

According to statements by the S&D and Greens/EFA during the debate, two points were contentious. Paragraph 12 called on the Ombudsman to assess the funding of non-governmental organisations that subsequently lobby the Parliament and the Commission, and warned of conflicts of interest. Paragraph 17 identified the protection of external borders as the main remit of the Frontex agency and argued that inadequate border protection leads to a higher number of deaths at sea. Amendments to paragraph 12 (252:300) and to paragraph 17 (155:402, 182:362 and 225:325) were rejected. Paragraph 17 remained as drafted by the committee (290:258). Paragraph 12 was voted on in parts: the first part was adopted 313:245, whilst the other three were rejected.

The EPP voted in favour (136 in favour, 3 against, 4 abstentions). Gheorghe Falcă (EPP) stated during the debate that the group appreciated and supported the report. He did not comment on the contentious points.

The S&D voted against (4 in favour, 104 against). Murielle Laurent (S&D) stated during the debate that, at a crucial moment, the EPP had aligned itself with the far right and supported two amendments deemed unacceptable by the S&D: one which, in her view, attacks non-governmental organisations and their funding, and the other which suggests that deaths at sea are caused by a lack of border controls.

The Greens/EFA voted unanimously against (0 in favour, 43 against, 2 abstentions). Cristina Guarda (Greens/EFA) stated during the debate that right-wing and far-right groups had misused the report to push through an agenda of environmental deregulation. According to her, the text accuses non-governmental organisations of lobbying, but overlooks the findings of the Ombudsman herself. She spoke of a serious precedent in relations between Parliament and the Ombudsman’s office.

Renew voted mostly against (17 in favour, 42 against, 2 abstentions). Michał Kobosko (Renew) supported the Ombudsman’s role during the debate but did not comment on points 12 and 17. It is not clear from the available documentation why part of the group voted in favour.

PfE voted in favour (58 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions), aligning with the EPP. The ECR and ESN, the other two far-right groups, mostly abstained: ECR – 39 abstentions, 16 against, 4 in favour; ESN – 20 abstentions, 1 in favour, 1 against. The Left voted against (35 against, 1 abstention).

The report was presented in plenary by Bogdan Rzońca (ECR), Chair of the Committee on Petitions. According to a note in the text of the report, he took over the role after Cristina Guarda stepped down as rapporteur following the vote in committee on 28 January 2026.