Background to the complaint

1. Under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), farmers may receive EU funding provided that they comply with certain requirements relating to the environment, climate change, good agricultural condition of land, human, animal and plant health and animal welfare[1] . These are now known as ‘conditionality’ requirements but at the time of the complaint were called ‘cross-compliance’ requirements.

2. The conditionality system establishes a link between, on the one hand, the payment of EU support under the CAP and, on the other hand, compliance with the conditionality requirements. Farmers who do not respect these rules would have their EU support reduced and may face other penalties.^[2]

3. In this context, the European Commission may carry out audits to determine whether Member States have correctly implemented the relevant rules and whether expenditure has been incurred in conformity with EU rules.

4. On 20 March 2025, the complainant, an association of Lithuanian agricultural companies, asked the Commission for public access[3] to the “Letter of findings resulting from enquiry no. XC/2022/004/LT of 14 October 2022 into cross-compliance and all subsequent exchanges with the Lithuanian authorities concerning that enquiry.” The documents requested concern a Commission audit relating to compliance by Lithuania with the environmental requirements that farmers in that Member State have to meet to receive EU funding.

5. In its initial reply, the Commission identified 29 documents with 132 annexes as falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. These documents concerned the announcement of an audit mission, the replies of the Lithuanian authorities, the file selection for the audit mission, the letter of findings, and other audit-related documents. The Commission refused public access to the documents, arguing that disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual[4] and the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits.[5] The Commission explained that the audit procedure on cross-compliance, to which the documents at issue related, was ongoing.

6. In April 2025, the complainant asked the Commission to review its decision by making a ‘confirmatory application’. The complainant argued, in essence, that refusing access to documents indicating shortcomings in the implementation of cross-compliance requirements was inconsistent with the Commission’s principles of transparency and with a mindset based on trust. The complainant also argued that there was an overriding public interest in disclosure.

7. In July 2025, the Commission adopted a confirmatory decision, confirming its refusal to disclose the requested documents on the basis of the exception for the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits.

8. Dissatisfied with the Commission’s refusal to disclose the documents, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The inquiry

9. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s refusal to give public access to the documents.

10. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected certain documents at issue in the complainant’s request.[6] The Commission also provided updates on the state of play of the audit concerned.  

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

11. The Commission argued that the exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits must be applied where disclosure of the documents would undermine the completion of audits. It stated that the interest protected by that exception is the interest in allowing audits to be conducted independently and free of pressures, whether from the body being audited, from other interested bodies or from the general public.[7]

12. The Commission also argued that there is a general presumption that documents concerning an on-going audit can be considered as covered, in their entirety, by that exception.[8]

13. According to the Commission, all of the documents concerned form part of an audit procedure on cross-compliance. The Commission stated that the audit procedure was still on-going at the date of its confirmatory decision and that, given the sensitivity of investigations into the possible exclusion of certain amounts from EU financing in the agricultural sector, disclosure would expose the Commission to a foreseeable risk of external pressure which would interfere with the proper conduct of the audit and undermine its effectiveness.

14. The Commission further argued that disclosure would adversely affect the climate of mutual trust between the Commission and the Member State concerned. It stated that confidential discussions with Member States are best achieved through cooperation in good faith and negotiations free from external pressure or premature public conclusions.

15. As regards the complainant’s argument that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure, the Commission considered that those arguments were of a general nature and relied solely on broad principles of transparency and trust. In its view, the complainant did not explain precisely how disclosing the documents would protect that public interest in a way that outweighs the interests underlying the refusal.[9]

16. The complainant argued that the Commission had failed to properly assess whether there was an overriding public interest in disclosure.

17. In particular, the complainant argued that CAP payments concern public funds and that information on beneficiaries of CAP support is publicly available. The complainant also argued that cross-compliance requirements concern matters of public interest, including the environment, climate change, human, animal and plant health, and animal welfare. This, the complainant said, showed that there was a strong public interest in ensuring the proper implementation of the CAP cross-compliance requirements to address alleged shortcomings and, therefore, in disclosure of the documents at issue.

18. The complainant further argued that, when relying on past case-law from the EU courts, the Commission had presented individual cases that “did not match the size of the EU CAP funds”. Finally, the complainant claimed that the EU rules on CAP payments contribute to make the CAP more compatible with the expectation of society, and thus emphasise the importance of the cross-compliance requirements for the public interest.[10]

The Ombudsman's assessment

19. The EU Courts have recognised that EU institutions may refuse public access to documents based on a ‘general presumption’ of non-disclosure for certain categories of documents.[11] This means that the institution concerned does not have to examine the documents in question individually, that is, it does not have to assess how their disclosure would specifically and actually undermine the protected interests. Rather, the institution concerned may assume that, because the documents in question fall within a certain category, disclosure of any of them would undermine the protected interests.

20. The case-law has clarified that one of these categories concerns certain sets of documents contained in ongoing audit files.[12]

21. The inspection of the requested documents by the Ombudsman inquiry team confirmed that they form part of a defined administrative file concerning the Commission’s audit on the system implemented by the competent authorities of Lithuania in the field of cross-compliance.

22. It is clear from the documents inspected that the audit procedure was still ongoing in June 2025. The Commission’s assertion that the audit was still in progress at the time of the confirmatory decision on the complainant’s request (29 June 2025) is therefore correct.

23. The Ombudsman considers that, in these circumstances, the Commission was entitled to rely on the exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits. The Commission’s reliance on a general presumption in respect of documents relating to an on-going audit was also reasonable.

24. The Ombudsman notes that, even if a general presumption applies, disclosure may still be warranted if an overriding public interest exists. To demonstrate the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure, however, EU case-law requires that an applicant for public access puts forward specific circumstances to justify disclosure, and that purely general considerations of transparency do not suffice.[13] In cases covered by a general presumption, transparency may only constitute an overriding public interest if it is especially pressing and based on concrete elements.[14]

25. The Ombudsman considers that there is a public interest in how EU funding is spent under the CAP and in whether the relevant environmental and other requirements attached to such funding are properly complied with and enforced. The issues raised by cross-compliance, now called ‘conditionality’, concern matters of wider societal importance.

26. While the public interest in this matter is clear, it has to be balanced with the public interest in protecting the purpose of an ongoing audit to ensure the compliance with the applicable Union and national law, in particular in the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP. In this context, the Ombudsman notes that the rules on CAP require that ‘information communicated or obtained under inspection and clearance of accounts measures’ must be kept confidential.[15] The key question is whether the public interest in having increased transparency on the matter overrides the public interest in safeguarding the purpose of the audit in question. In that regard, the Ombudsman considers reasonable the Commission’s argument that, at that stage, the public interest was best served by allowing the audit procedure to be completed. As the Commission explained, and in line with EU case law,[16] the complainant did not put forward a specific and pressing need for the disclosure of the documents while such an audit was on-going.

27. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that the Commission was justified in refusing public access to the documents at issue at the time of its confirmatory decision. There was no maladministration by the Commission in this case.

28. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman also obtained from the Commission an update on the current state of play of the audit. The Commission confirmed in August 2026 that the concerned audit was concluded and consequently the documents could be disclosed. The Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will now grant the widest possible access to the documents if the complainant were to pursue the matter.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

There was no maladministration by the Commission in this case.

The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision.

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 07/10/2026

 

[1] See Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1306/oj/eng#anx_II.

[2] More information available at: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/income-support/conditionality_en.

[3] In accordance with Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32001R1049

[4] Referred to in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001.

[5] Article 4(2) of the Regulation.

[6] The Ombudsman asked the Commission to provide a sample of the documents, namely copies of the latest exchanges with the Member State concerning the audit, as well as the audit report itself.

[7] Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015, Technion v European Commission, T-480/11, paragraph 63, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=ecli%3AECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2015%3A272

[8] The Commission referred to the Technion judgment (see previous footnote), paragraphs 55-65.

[9] The Commission referred to the judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 in case T-634/17, Anikó Pint v European Commission, paragraph 48, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-634/17&language=en.

[10] The complainant referred to the preamble to Regulation 2013/1306, recital 54 (see footnote 1).

[11] Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 in case T-380/08, Netherlands v Commission, paragraph 35, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-380/08&language=EN.

[12] Technion judgment (see footnote 7), paragraphs 55-65.

[13] See the judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 September 2024, ClientEarth v Commission, C-249/23 P, paragraph 55, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0249.

[14] Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November 2013, LPN and Finland v Commission, Joined Cases C‑514/11 P and C‑605/11 P, paragraph 93, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-514/11&language=en.

[15] Article 103(1) of Regulation 1306/2013.

[16] See judgment of 7 September 2023, Breyer v REA, C-135/22 P, paragraph 75, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-135/22.