Background to the complaint

1. Since 2019, the European Commission has been providing support for migration management in Cyprus together with the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) and the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol).[1] This support includes EU funding, expertise and staff deployments through the Operational Cooperation Platform for migration management support to Cyprus (OCP).

2. In 2022, a Memorandum of Understanding[2] on the implementation of the EU-Cyprus Action Plan for Migration Management (Action Plan) was signed. The Memorandum of Understanding and the Action Plan concern procedures for first reception, asylum and return, material reception conditions such as housing, and integration of third country nationals. A dedicated OCP Steering Group, with representatives from the Commission, the relevant EU agencies and the Cypriot authorities, oversees the implementation of the Action Plan.

3. When it comes to reception infrastructure more specifically[3], the Commission and the International Organization for Migration cooperate with Cyprus to improve living conditions and infrastructure in the First Reception Centre (FRC) in Pournara. In addition, the Commission granted Cyprus EU funding for the construction of a new second-line reception centre in Limnes, and the EUAA funded upgrades (a new facility) in the Kofinou Reception Centre.

4. Against this background, the complainant made a request for public access to the Commission under the EU legislation on public access to documents[4] (Regulation 1049/2001). In September 2023, they asked for public access to documents[5] concerning: (1) the activities of the OCP in Cyprus, (2) a visit to Cyprus by the Deputy Director-General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME) in July 2023, and (3) correspondence between Commission staff deployed in Cyprus and DG HOME regarding reception and accommodation facilities in Cyprus.

5. The complainant received an initial reply to the access request in December 2023. The Commission identified four documents as falling within the scope of the access request, namely (1) two meeting reports of the OCP Steering Group and (2) two documents related to the visit of DG HOME’s Deputy Director-General to Cyprus in July 2023 (a briefing and a Flash Report).

6. After consulting the Cypriot authorities, the Commission gave partial access to the Flash Report and refused to give access to the remaining three documents in their entirety. In doing so, it invoked exceptions under Regulation 1049/2001, arguing that (full) disclosure was prevented by the need to protect the public interest as regards public security[6] and international relations[7], as well as ongoing decision-making processes[8]. The Commission added that it does not hold any documents falling within the scope of the third aspect of the complainant’s access request.

7. The complainant asked the Commission to review its decision (by making a ‘confirmatory application’). They argued that the Commission should not have consulted the Cypriot authorities and that it did not sufficiently substantiate its reliance on the exceptions to public access. In view of fundamental rights concerns raised in the context of the Cypriot migrant reception facilities, the complainant also contended that an overriding public interest in disclosure exists because these facilities receive extensive EU funding, and the Commission must ensure that EU-funded projects comply with EU law. Finally, the complainant considered that the Commission should have granted partial access to the documents identified, taking into account the Ombudsman’s view that overall transparency in this area should be increased[9].

8. In the absence of a reply within the extended time limit, which expired on 20 February 2024, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in April 2024.

The inquiry

9. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry in May 2024 into the Commission’s implicit decision to refuse (full) access under Regulation 1049/2001.

10. In October 2024, following the review of the documents identified by the Commission at initial stage, the Ombudsman shared her preliminary view with the Commission. She urged the Commission to adopt its confirmatory decision without further delay and to provide the widest possible access.

11. Shortly after, on 29 October 2024, the Commission adopted its confirmatory decision, refusing wider access to the documents at issue.

12. In January 2025, the Ombudsman inquiry team met with representatives of the Commission. The purpose of the meeting was for the Ombudsman inquiry team to obtain further clarifications on the Commission’s position at confirmatory stage, in light of the Ombudsman’s preliminary view in this case and a parallel inquiry concerning related documents held by the EUAA (724/2024/AML)[10].

13. The complainant provided comments on the Ombudsman’s preliminary view, the Commission’s confirmatory decision and the report of the meeting between the Ombudsman inquiry team and representatives of the Commission.

14. The Ombudsman also took note of the complainant’s concern regarding the time taken by the Commission to reply to their access request. In the context of a strategic inquiry[11], the Ombudsman found that the Commission has incurred systemic and significant delays in processing public access requests, which amount to maladministration[12]. While the Ombudsman regrets the delay in the Commission’s response to the complainant’s request, she did not inquire into the delay to reply in this specific case.

The Ombudsman’s preliminary view

15. Based on an inspection of the documents identified at initial stage and of the documentation in relation to the third-party consultation, the Ombudsman took the preliminary view that wider access could be granted to the requested documents.

16. More specifically, for the two meeting reports of the OCP Steering Group (documents 1 and 2), the Ombudsman considered that the Commission had not sufficiently explained in its initial decision what internal decision-making process would require protection and how such decision-making would be seriously undermined by giving further access to the meeting reports. Moreover, it was not readily clear to the Ombudsman what parts of the meeting reports should be kept confidential to protect the public interest as regards public security. While the Ombudsman recognised that discussions on migration management between the Commission, Cyprus and the relevant EU agencies may touch on sensitive issues as indicated in the Commission’s reply, much of the information contained in the meeting reports appeared generic and/or even publicly available through the EU-Cyprus Action Plan and the related Memorandum of Understanding.

17. For document 3, the briefing for DG HOME’s then Deputy Director-General, the Ombudsman took the preliminary view that the Commission had applied the exception for its ongoing decision-making process too broadly. Also for this document, much of the information contained in it appeared generic and/or even publicly available. It was thus not readily clear how the Commission’s concern that high-ranking Commission officials or Commissioners would no longer be able to benefit from “frankly expressed and complete views required of its civil servants” justified the refusal of access to this document in its entirety.

18. As regards the Flash Report (document 4), the Ombudsman considered that the Commission redacted this document too heavily, relying on the protection of the public interest as regards public security. Furthermore, the Ombudsman noted that the exception for the protection of the public interest as regards international relations cannot be applied by reference to the need to maintain a climate of mutual trust between the EU and its Member States.[13]

19. In addition, the Ombudsman encouraged the Commission to engage, in its confirmatory decision, with the complainant’s arguments as regards the existence of a possible overriding public interest in disclosure.

20. Finally, the Ombudsman said that she trusted that the Commission would conduct a renewed search at confirmatory stage to ensure the identification of all relevant documents, such as, for instance, attachments to the briefing, which may also fall within the scope of the complainant’s access request.

The Commission’s confirmatory decision, meeting and the complainant’s comments

21. On 29 October 2024, the Commission adopted its confirmatory decision, refusing wider access to the documents at issue. To clarify the Commission’s position in its confirmatory decision, the Ombudsman inquiry team met with representatives of the Commission. Subsequently, the complainant provided their comments on the Ombudsman’s preliminary view, the Commission’s confirmatory decision and on the meeting report.

Regarding the meeting reports of the OCP Steering Group (documents 1 and 2)

22. In its confirmatory decision, the Commission referred to its consultation with Cyprus at initial stage[14] and restated its view that, as the conclusions of the meetings of the OCP Steering Group are drafted and agreed upon jointly with the Cypriot authorities, they partly originate from Cyprus and Cyprus is thus the co-originator of the reports. Therefore, the Commission conducted a prima facie assessment of the exceptions invoked by Cyprus.

23. Following that assessment, the Commission considered that the meeting reports are covered by the exception for the protection of the public interest as regards public security in their entirety. It specified that the meeting reports contain sensitive information regarding vulnerable spots (such as reception and detention centres), unaccompanied minors, the involvement of police and other national authorities in migration management, and the development of projects funded by the EU (such as the reconstruction of the First Reception Centre in Pournara).

24. The Commission pointed to the wide discretion that institutions enjoy when applying the public security exception.[15] It considered that disclosure “would undermine the protection of public security given, on the one hand, the situation faced by the Republic of Cyprus in ensuring a fair and efficient European asylum and migration system and, on the other hand, the geopolitical situation”. Finally, the Commission contended that disclosure of the meeting reports could “jeopardise the mutual trust and cooperation between the Commission and its partners, which is essential for the joint work with regard to migration management”.

25. During the meeting with the Ombudsman inquiry team, the Commission representatives clarified that the Commission did not consult Cyprus again at confirmatory stage as there was no doubt about the Cypriot position in relation to the disclosure of the meeting reports.

26. The Commission representatives further contended that, while some parts of the meeting reports might relate to information that is publicly available, the reports themselves are much more detailed. The Commission representatives provided examples in that regard. In addition, the Commission representatives said that the reports contain privileged information gathered from the Cypriot authorities, information based on previous confidential exchanges, and discussions on options to address certain issues. This information is not in the public domain. Disclosing the meeting reports would therefore affect the mutual trust between the Commission and Cyprus and the Member State’s willingness to share information and collaborate with the Commission in the future.

27. Furthermore, the Commission representatives stressed the Commission’s specific role in monitoring compliance with EU law and managing EU funds. Concretely, concerns raised in a high-level forum such as the OCP Steering Group are intended to be addressed jointly with the Cypriot authorities but do not necessarily imply that the Commission has concluded that there are systemic issues. However, disclosure of some of the information contained in the documents “could risk it being taken out of context or misinterpreted, potentially leading to misunderstandings or to a one-sided representation of the situation”.

28. The Commission representatives provided confidential examples of parts of the meeting reports, which the Commission considers sensitive in light of the public interest in protecting public security.

29. Finally, the Commission representatives distinguished the meeting reports from the documents at issue in case 724/2024/AML. Unlike the documents at issue in the latter case, the meeting reports in question reflect high-level discussions on the Action Plan, they are more detailed, and they contain information that is more sensitive.

Regarding the briefing for DG HOME’s Deputy Director-General (document 3)

30. In its confirmatory decision, the Commission elaborated on its position in its initial decision that disclosure of the briefing would negatively affect the Commission services’ ability to correctly inform senior management and would lead to a lack of constructive internal criticism, undermining the Commission’s ability to take well-informed decisions.[16] It would also make Commission staff more hesitant to express their opinions out of fear of external pressure and would lead to interference and speculation by exposing the Commission’s internal views on matters of high political sensitivity. In this regard, the Commission stressed that the briefing is neither a decision having legal effect nor a basis for taking decisions. Rather, it is “a mere administrative note containing preliminary statements and subject to further adjustments if deemed necessary in the course of the decision-making process”.

31. The Commission also clarified that both closed and ongoing decision-making procedures[17] would be impacted. More specifically, disclosure of the briefing would reveal preliminary views and policy options regarding ongoing infringement procedures[18] and two EU funding applications: the Specific Action call under the 2021-2027 Asylum Migration and Integration Fund for Member States under pressure − unaccompanied minors (closed); and the Specific Action ‘Electronic surveillance systems at external sea border’ (ongoing).

32. In the meeting with the Ombudsman inquiry team, the Commission representatives clarified that briefings are approved by senior managers and the intended addressee. They also said that the information contained in the briefing should not be made public without the appropriate context given the often sensitive nature of that information, including reflections, internal assessments, preliminary legal positions and policy options. They specified that disclosure would undermine political decisions related to DG HOME’s Task Force Migration Management with Cyprus, in addition to EU funding decisions and pending infringement proceedings. For example, in the context of infringement proceedings, the concrete grievances and the Commission’s interim assessment are not in the public domain.

33. Whilst the briefing contains some general elements, the Commission representatives stated that the Commission concluded that disclosing only a few sentences would be meaningless. In addition, they clarified that the Commission considered the attachments to the briefing to fall outside the scope of the complainant’s access request.

34. Finally, the Commission deemed the complainant’s arguments in favour of an overriding public interest in disclosure too general in nature and it held that the refusal of public access to the briefing better serves the public interest as it protects its cooperation with Cyprus.

Regarding the Flash Report on the visit of DG HOME’s Deputy Director-General (document 4)

35. In its confirmatory decision, the Commission did not review its initial decision to grant partial access to the Flash Report. As the Commission representatives said during the meeting with the Ombudsman inquiry team, the Commission considered that the complainant did not contest its assessment of the Flash Report in their confirmatory application. In particular, the Commission representatives stated that the complainant did not raise any arguments justifying its wider disclosure unlike in the case of the other documents at issue in relation to which they provided detailed and substantive arguments to challenge the Commission's initial assessment.

36. In their comments to the Ombudsman, the complainant stressed that refusal of public access under Regulation 1049/2001 cannot be justified based on a risk of misinterpretation. Similarly, granting access cannot be made dependent on the presumed intent or capacity of the requester. Furthermore, the complainant said that “vague or speculative concerns about diplomatic sensitivities or future cooperation cannot justify blanket refusals, particularly in the context of EU-funded migration policies with serious human rights implications”.

37. Regarding the briefing specifically, the complainant argued that the fact that it was approved at a high level and that it includes sensitive reflections, assessments and policy options is “precisely what gives it significant public interest value”. Its disclosure would shed light on how migration policy is shaped and negotiated.

The Ombudsman's assessment

Regarding the meeting reports of the OCP Steering Group (documents 1 and 2)

38. The Ombudsman notes that the Commission, in its confirmatory decision, no longer relies on the exception for the protection of a decision-making process to refuse access to the meeting reports of the OCP Steering Group. The Ombudsman’s assessment is thus limited to the Commission’s application of the public security exception to the meeting reports in their entirety.

39. The EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies enjoy a wide margin of discretion when determining whether disclosing a document would undermine the protection of the public interests listed in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation 1049/2001, which includes public security.[19] As such, the Ombudsman’s inquiry sought to assess if there was a manifest error in the Commission’s assessment in that regard.

40. Under Article 4(5) of Regulation 1049/2001 (read in combination with Article 4(4) of Regulation 1049/2001), a Member State may request an EU institution not to disclose a document originating from that Member State without its prior agreement. In such case, the institution concerned is not required to carry out an exhaustive assessment of the Member State’s decision to object to disclosure.[20] Rather, it must (i) check whether the Member State has given reasons for non-disclosure in line with the exceptions set out in Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 and (ii) assess whether the explanations given by the Member State appear to it, prima facie, well founded.[21]

41. The meeting reports at issue are drafted and agreed upon by the Commission and the Cypriot authorities together. On this basis, the Commission considered that the reports ‘co-originate’ from those national authorities and therefore are subject to consultation in line with Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation 1049/2001. The Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable for the Commission to consult the Cypriot authorities on the access request.

42. The Commission specified in its confirmatory decision the topics discussed in the OCP Steering Group. It argued that disclosure of the sensitive information regarding those topics, as reflected in the meeting reports, would put at risk Cypriot efforts to ensure a fair and efficient European asylum and migration system. Consequently, public security would be undermined, also bearing in mind the delicate geopolitical situation. In addition, the Commission stressed the importance of mutual trust between the Commission and Cyprus in migration management.  

43. During the meeting with the Ombudsman inquiry team, the Commission added that, without such trust, the Cypriot authorities might be more hesitant to share (privileged) information and collaborate with the Commission in the future. Similarly, concerns raised in the OCP Steering Group are intended to be addressed jointly with the Cypriot authorities. The Commission is concerned that disclosure of some of the information contained in the meeting reports would be taken out of context or misinterpreted. 

44. In light of the Commission’s additional explanations, the Ombudsman accepts that the information contained in the meeting reports is different in nature and more detailed than information on similar topics that is publicly available through the Action Plan, the Memorandum of Understanding, or otherwise. At the same time, while discussions on topics such as reception and detention centres, unaccompanied minors and the involvement of police and other national authorities in migration management could touch upon elements the disclosure of which would pose a risk to public security, the Ombudsman maintains her view that the reflection of the discussions in the meeting reports is not detailed or specific throughout.

45. The Ombudsman further notes that the Commission is conscious about protecting mutual trust with Cyprus. The Ombudsman has in the past rejected general references to the need to protect mutual trust between EU bodies and Member States as a reason to justify the refusal of public access,[22] referring to the duty of sincere cooperation[23] and related case law[24]. However, in the specific circumstances of this case, in particular that the Cypriot authorities co-authored the requested meeting reports which contain (privileged) information shared by Cyprus on migration management, the Ombudsman will not pursue this bearing in mind the wide margin of discretion EU bodies have when determining whether disclosing a document would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security.

46. What the Ombudsman regrets, however, is that the Commission did not consult Cyprus again at confirmatory stage. The consultation of Member States on public access requests, in accordance with Article 4(5) of Regulation 1049/2001, is precisely meant to limit the risk of a breach of mutual trust. Given the Cypriot authorities’ agreement to wide disclosure of related documents in the context of the Ombudsman’s inquiry into case 724/2024/AML and considering the passage of time since their consultation at initial stage, consulting the Cypriot authorities again would have shown the Commission’s commitment to transparency in this area.  

47. Finally, as the complainant rightfully pointed out, the Ombudsman has already urged[25] the Commission to increase the overall transparency of its cooperation with the Greek authorities in migration management. The same applies for the Commission’s cooperation with the Cypriot authorities. Public interest in the Commission’s collaboration with Cyprus in this area should be anticipated and the proactive publication of detailed minutes or summaries of meetings of the OCP Steering Group could therefore be beneficial.

Regarding the briefing for DG HOME’s Deputy Director-General (document 3)

48. In its confirmatory decision, the Commission confirmed its reliance on the exception for the protection of an ongoing decision-making process to refuse access to the briefing in its entirety. In addition, it contended that refusal of access was necessary to protect certain closed decision-making procedures. The Commission did not identify any attachments as additional documents.

49. To rely on the exception for the protection of an ongoing or closed decision-making process, the Commission must show that access is likely to concretely and effectively bring serious harm to the decision-making process in a reasonably foreseeable and non-hypothetical way.[26] The Ombudsman has repeatedly held[27] that a reference to a generic risk of ‘external pressure’ cannot in itself justify non-disclosure.

50. The Commission argued that disclosure of the briefing would lead to such external pressure and carry a risk of self-censorship. As a consequence, the Commission would be deprived of constructive internal criticism and its ability to take well-informed decisions would be affected. In addition, the briefing contains reflections, internal assessments, preliminary legal positions and policy options which should, according to the Commission, not be made public without the appropriate context given the often sensitive nature of that information. Therefore, disclosure of the briefing at issue would undermine both closed and ongoing decision-making procedures relating to funding and infringement proceedings as well as other political decisions related to DG HOME’s cooperation with Cyprus. 

51. The Ombudsman does not see how the elements invoked by the Commission in the context of this access request would show that its decision-making processes would be seriously harmed by disclosing even parts of the briefing and thus that access to the briefing had to be refused in full. The Court of Justice of the EU has held that, for the exception under Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 to apply, a specific decision-making process should be identified[28] and that a reference to the internal or preparatory nature of a document does not suffice[29]. In addition, it is settled case-law that “the freedom of expression of the Commission’s services does not play a decisive role, as the determinant issue is whether the concerns of the relevant institution are objectively justified”.[30]

52. The Ombudsman considers that it would have been justified to redact certain sensitive parts of the briefing, including concrete grievances and the Commission’s interim assessment in the context of ongoing infringement proceedings[31]. The Ombudsman observes, nonetheless, that the two infringement proceedings mentioned by the Commission in its confirmatory decision were closed shortly before its adoption.  

53. Furthermore, based on the inspection of the briefing, the Ombudsman considers that partial access would have been possible. It appears that the Commission’s position in relation to the briefing at issue was a principled one rather than one based on the concrete content of the document. In any event, it would be difficult to accept a position whereby every briefing written by a desk officer should remain confidential in its entirety.

54. Moreover, the Commission should have engaged further with the complainant’s views as regards the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure. The Ombudsman emphasises the need to ensure transparency of decisions and activities of EU institutions as regards compliance with fundamental rights.

55. The Ombudsman regrets that the Commission did not grant wider access to the briefing.

56. Finally, the Ombudsman has already shared her view with the Commission that the attachments to the briefing (document 3) may fall within the scope of the complainant’s access request. Similarly, the Ombudsman considered that further access could have been granted to the Flash Report (document 4). The complainant did not provide further comments on either matter. For the future, the Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will duly consider attachments to requested documents and identify them for potential disclosure where they fall within the scope of an access request. The Ombudsman encourages the Commission to always give preference to citizen-friendly and service-minded readings of confirmatory applications.

57. In light of the above, the Ombudsman regrets that the Commission did not consult the Cypriot authorities again on a possible partial disclosure of the meeting reports at confirmatory stage. The Ombudsman also regrets that the Commission did not grant wider access to the briefing during her inquiry. Given that the Commission confirmed its position in the confirmatory decision and during the meeting with the Ombudsman inquiry team, the Ombudsman takes the view that no purpose would be served by pursuing the matter in the context of this case. The Ombudsman, however, expects the Commission to take her detailed assessment into account when dealing with future public access requests to briefings and meeting reports such as those at issue.

Conclusion

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

The Ombudsman regrets that the Commission did not consult the Cypriot authorities again on a possible partial disclosure of the meeting reports at confirmatory stage. The Ombudsman also regrets that the Commission did not grant wider access to the briefing during her inquiry. Given that the Commission confirmed its position in the confirmatory decision and during the meeting with the Ombudsman inquiry team, the Ombudsman takes the view that no purpose would be served by pursuing the matter in the context of this case. The Ombudsman, however, expects the Commission to take her detailed assessment into account when dealing with future public access requests to briefings and meeting reports such as those at issue.

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

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 18/12/2025

 

[1] For more information, see: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/migration-management/migration-management-cyprus_en.

[2] Available at: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/commission-decision-implementation-eu-cyprus-action-plan-migration-management-annex-1_en. 

[3] For more information, see: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/migration-management/migration-management-cyprus/upgrades-and-construction-reception-facilities_en .

[4] 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.

[5] From 1 February 2023 to the date of the request (12 September 2023).

[6] Article 4(1)(a), first indent, of Regulation 1049/2001.

[7] Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001.

[8] Article 4(3), first paragraph, of Regulation 1049/2001.

[9] Decision in strategic inquiry OI/3/2022/MHZ on how the European Commission ensures respect for fundamental rights in EU-funded migration management facilities in Greece: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/170792.

[10] Case 724/2024/AML on the European Union Agency for Asylum’s (EUAA) refusal to give public access to documents related to reception conditions in several Cypriot migration management facilities: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/66245.

[11] Strategic inquiry OI/2/2022/OAM on the time the European Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/60766.  

[12] Decision in strategic inquiry OI/2/2022/OAM on the time the European Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/175321; Special Report to the European Parliament in strategic inquiry OI/2/2022/OAM: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/special-report/en/175425.

[13] Judgment of 14 February 2012, Germany v Commission, T-59/09, paragraphs 63 and 65, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62009TJ0059.

[14] In accordance with Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation 1049/2001.

[15] Judgment of 3 July 2014, Council v in 't Veld, C-350/12 P, paragraph 63, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-350/12&language=EN.

[16] Referring to Judgment of 9 September 2008, MyTravel v Commission, T-403/05, paragraphs 50-52, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=T-403/05; Judgment of 15 September 2016, Philip Morris v Commission, T-18/15, paragraph 87, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=T-18/15. 

[17] Article 4(3), first and second paragraph, of Regulation 1049/2001.

[18] INFR(2013)2252 - Incorrect implementation by Cyprus of Directives 2003/9/EC (Reception Conditions) and 2005/85/EC (Asylum Procedures); and INFR(2014)2170 - Incorrect implementation by Cyprus of Directives 2003/9/EC (Reception Conditions) and 2005/85/EC (Asylum Procedures) (detention and effective remedy).

[19] Judgment of 1 February 2007, Sison v Council, C‑266/05 P, paragraph 64, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-266/05.

[20] Judgment of 21 June 2012, IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission, C-135/11 P, paragraph 63, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-135/11%20P.

[21] Judgment of 5 April 2017, France v Commission, T-344/15, paragraph 54, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?lgrec=fr&td=%3BALL&language=en&num=T-344/15&jur=T; Judgment of 8 February 2018,  POA v Commission, T-74/16, paragraph 57, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-74/16&language=EN.

[22] See, for example, Recommendation on the refusal by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) to give public access to two opinions by its Fundamental Rights Officer (case 1497/2024/ACB), paragraphs 32-33: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/recommendation/en/199964.

[23] The EU Treaties establish this duty of sincere cooperation between the EU institutions and the Member States in Article 4(3) TEU.

[24] Judgment of 14 September 2022, Pollinis France v Commission, T‑371/20 and T‑554/20, paragraphs 111-112, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-371/20&language=en.

[25] First suggestion for improvement in strategic inquiry OI/3/2022/MHZ: “The Task Force should increase the overall transparency of its actions by: interacting in a more regular and structured format with civil society organisations present in the field, and publishing minutes of such meetings; requiring that the steering committee between the Task Force and the Greek authorities has regular meetings and publishes detailed minutes of such meetings. The Commission should publish documents relating to the activities of the Task Force on its dedicated webpage, including all grant agreements signed with Greece about MPRICs or summaries of them.”

[26] Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011, Toland v Parliament, T-471/08, paragraphs 71 and 78: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=T-471/08.

[27] Decision on how the European Investment Bank discloses environmental and social information on projects prior to decisions on funding (2252/2022/OAM), paragraph 26, available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/178093; Decision on how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) dealt with a request for public access to documents concerning social media monitoring related to migration routes (344/2023/PVV), paragraph 22: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/192720; Decision on how the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission handle requests for public access to legislative documents (OI/4/2023/MIK), paragraphs 47-49, available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/196680.

[28] Judgment of 16 January 2025, Commission v Pollinis France, C-726/22 P, paragraph 74: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&td=ALL&num=C-726/22%20P; Judgment of 18 June 2025, Zver v Commission, T-235/24, paragraphs 97-98: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&td=ALL&num=T-235/24.

[29] Zver v Commission, paragraph 105.

[30] Judgment of 18 December 2008, Muñiz v Commission, T-144/05, paragraphs 89-91, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?lgrec=fr&td=%3BALL&language=en&num=T-144/05&jur=T; Judgment of 20 September 2016, PAN Europe v Commission, T-51/15, paragraph 42, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-51/15&language=EN; Zver v Commission, paragraph 107.

[31] Under Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001.