Background to the complaint

1. The complainant, a journalist, asked the European Commission for public access to documents related to a meeting between the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI) and members of the Hungarian Commissioner’s cabinet on 19 June 2024.

2. The Commission gave wide public access to the relevant meeting report and an email, in which the TBI had requested the meeting, with redactions of personal data.

3. The complainant contested the Commission’s decision not to provide full access to the documents in question. In reply, the Commission provided wider partial access, by disclosing the names of the Commission staff members who had attended the meeting. The names of the representatives of TBI remained redacted.

4.  Dissatisfied with the Commission’s decision not to disclose the names of the TBI representatives that had participated in the meeting, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The inquiry

5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how the Commission had dealt with the complainant’s request for public access to the documents in question.

6. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue in the complainant’s access request. The Commission also submitted additional views on the complaint.

Arguments presented

By the complainant

7. The complainant argued that there was a necessity to disclose the personal data in this case for a specific purpose in the public interest, for two reasons. First, the complainant suspected that one of the TBI representatives present at the meeting was a public figure that previously held public office. In his view, even after leaving public office, that person continues to be a public figure, given that the person’s actions, including any professional activity for TBI, are frequently reported on in public. Second, as a journalist, the complainant wished to investigate the role of the TBI representative in question in Brussels, and therefore considered that there is sufficient public interest to disclose the names in the document.

8. More generally, the complainant argued that interest representatives, when acting in a professional capacity, should not be able to hide behind data protection rules.

By the Commission

9. The Commission said that it is bound by the applicable rules on the processing of personal data.[1] It added that there is no other legal basis that would allow the Commission to disclose personal data.

10. The Commission said that, with regard to the disclosure of the names of individuals, the applicable rules require it to conduct a balancing exercise. First, the Commission must assess the recipient’s arguments establishing a necessity to have the data transmitted for a specific purpose in the public interest. Second, the Commission must assess whether it is proportionate to transmit the personal data for that specific purpose when there is reason to assume that the data subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced by doing so.

11. The Commission considered that the complainant’s arguments did not demonstrate a necessity for transmission of the requested personal data.

12. The Commission noted that the representatives of TBI attending the meeting had not made public themselves the fact that they attended the meeting with the Commission on behalf of their organisation. Therefore, there is arguably a real and non-hypothetical risk that disclosure of their names would harm their privacy and subject them to unsolicited external contacts. More generally, the Commission considered that, in the case of private organisations, while some of their representatives may be so well known that they could be considered public figures, they are not acting in a public capacity, as they are employed by or representing private companies or bodies.

13. The wider transparency that the Commission applies to ‘public figures acting in a public capacity’, that is, people holding a public mandate and involving public resources, such as Members of the European Parliament, Presidents, Heads of State and Ministers, do not apply to interest representatives who are not acting in a public capacity.

14. In view of this, the Commission said that it could neither confirm nor deny whether the individual in question attended the meeting. This is because, while the person concerned may still be a well-known person, this person no longer acts in a public capacity. Therefore, the higher transparency standard that is afforded to ‘public figures acting in a public capacity’ does not apply in this case.

15. The Commission argued that the public interest and public scrutiny are served by proactively disclosing: (i) the name of the organisation that lobbies the Commission, (ii) the names of the senior Commission representatives that the interest representatives meet, (iii) the date and topic of the meeting.

The Ombudsman's assessment

16. The case concerns the refused public access to the personal data of the TBI representatives contained in the two documents at issue in the complainant’s confirmatory application.

17. The review of the two documents by the Ombudsman inquiry team confirmed that they contain personal data, and that the redactions applied by the Commission cover that personal data.

18. The concept of ‘personal data’ under the EU legislation on data protection is very broad. Personal data comprises “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person”[2].

19. The Commission correctly argued that, in order to transmit the personal data to the complainant (in other words, disclose the documents in full without the personal data redactions), the Commission must first check whether the complainant has demonstrated a need to have this personal data transferred to him for a specific purpose in the public interest.

20. The complainant argued in his confirmatory application that, as a journalist, he wishes to cover the specific individual’s professional activities for TBI in Brussels.

21. The Ombudsman notes that the Commission has, in reply to the complainant’s access request, disclosed substantial information about the meeting in question. This includes the subject matters discussed, the date of the meeting, the identity of the Commission representatives who attended the meeting and the fact that representatives of TBI attended the meeting.

22. The Ombudsman also notes that it is public information that the individual in question worked for TBI at the time the meeting in question took place. Therefore, to the Ombudsman, the question whether this particular TBI representative was present in the meeting is irrelevant, as it is public that this person works for and supports TBI’s advocacy efforts.

23. In this context, the Ombudsman is of the view that the Commission’s assessment of whether the complainant had put forward a necessity to disclose the personal data in question was reasonable. Therefore, there are no further inquiries justified.

24. However, the Ombudsman is of the view that the Commission could have consulted with TBI on the question of disclosing the names of their representatives at the meeting.[3] This could have been an efficient way of addressing the complainant’s request, and could have removed any basis for public speculation. The Ombudsman will make a corresponding suggestion for improvement below.

Conclusion

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

No further inquiries are justified.

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

Suggestion for improvement

In order to deal in a citizen-friendly manner with public access requests and increase lobbying transparency, the Commission should ask interest representatives who meet with it if they consent to disclosing their personal data when this is specifically requested.

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 18/02/2025

 

[1] In accordance with Article 9 of Regulation 2018/1725 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/oj.

[2] Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, see footnote 1.

[3] In accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj.