Background to the complaint

1. EU cohesion funds aim to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU.[1] For EU funds that are managed jointly by the EU and its Member States, a ‘single rulebook’[2] applies, the Common Provisions Regulation[3] (CPR). The CPR determines that EU Funds should be implemented in accordance with fundamental rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in particular.[4] In addition, the CPR’s annexes lay down horizontal and thematic ‘enabling conditions’ that Member States have to fulfil in order to claim EU reimbursements for their expenditures for EU-funded programmes.[5] One of the horizontal enabling conditions is the effective application and implementation of the Charter and requires Member States to have effective mechanisms in place for this purpose.[6]

2. In December 2022, the European Commission adopted the Partnership Agreement with Hungary[7] on EU funding for the Member State under the CPR for the period from 2021 to 2027.[8] In its related Implementing Decisions[9], the Commission expressed concern in relation to Hungary’s fulfilment of the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter. More specifically, in relation to judicial independence, the Commission held that the horizontal enabling condition would be considered fulfilled “once Hungary has taken the measures on the judiciary to which it has committed under the country's Recovery and Resilience Plan”[10]. Regarding child protection law, the protection of academic freedom and the right to asylum, the Commission considered that Hungary did not fulfil the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter.[11]

3. Around the same time, the Council of the EU, acting upon a proposal of the Commission, adopted an Implementing Decision[12] under the Conditionality Regulation[13]. Concretely, the Council decided to suspend about €6.3 billion in EU funds attributed to Hungary for the protection of the EU budget in light of breaches of the principles of the rule of law regarding public procurement and anti-corruption investigations and prosecution.[14]

4. About a year later, in December 2023, the Commission concluded that Hungary had “taken the measures it committed to take” to reform its judiciary as set out in its Recovery and Resilience Plan.[15] Therefore, the Commission decided[16] that Hungary fulfilled the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter under the CPR with regard to judicial independence, making around €10.2 billion available to Hungary to claim reimbursements. The Commission nevertheless maintained its concerns in relation to child protection, academic freedom and the right to asylum.[17] The measures imposed on the basis of the Conditionality Regulation were not yet lifted either.[18]

5. Against this background, the complainant submitted a request for public access[19] to the Commission in November 2023, asking for documents “by which the Hungarian authorities have informed the Commission, pursuant to Article 15 paragraph 3 of [the CPR], that they consider an enabling condition that was not fulfilled at the time of approval of a programme under that regulation has been subsequently fulfilled”. In particular, the complainant requested access to Hungary’s self-assessment of its fulfilment of the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter as regards judicial independence. In addition, the complainant requested access to the exchanges between the Commission and the Hungarian authorities on these enabling conditions, and all documents containing the Commission’s assessment of the information submitted by Hungary.

6. The complainant received an initial reply in January 2024. The Commission identified five documents as falling within the scope of the access request. Two of these documents were letters (with attachments) sent by Hungary to the Commission. Three further documents were letters sent by the Commission to the Hungarian authorities. All documents concerned the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter in relation to judicial independence.

7. After consulting the Hungarian authorities on disclosure of the two letters that they sent, the Commission gave (partial)[20] access to some of their attachments and refused access to the remaining documents in their entirety. In doing so, the Commission argued that disclosure would undermine the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits[21] as protected under the EU legislation on public access to documents (Regulation 1049/2001). As for its own documents, the Commission granted full access to one document and refused access to the two other documents in their entirety. It argued that this refusal was based on the exception for the protection of the institution’s decision-making process[22].  

8. The complainant asked the Commission to review its decision (by making a ‘confirmatory application’), challenging the application of the exceptions, and questioning whether the Commission had identified all documents falling within the scope of the access request. More specifically, the complainant considered that their access request also encompassed documents concerning the thematic enabling conditions that Hungary did not fulfil.

9. In March 2024, the European Parliament brought to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) an action for annulment of the Commission’s Decision on Hungary’s compliance with the Charter as regards judicial independence, alleging manifest errors of assessment, infringement of the duty to state reasons and misuse of powers (case C-225/24). This court case is currently pending.^[23] 

10. In the absence of a reply to their confirmatory application within the extended time limit, which expired in April 2024, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman. 

The inquiry

11. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s implicit decision to refuse access under Regulation 1049/2001.

12. During the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue in the complainant’s access request. The Ombudsman also invited the Commission to provide additional views on the complaint.

13. The Commission asked for a meeting[24] with the Ombudsman inquiry team. During the meeting, the Commission representatives explained that the complainant’s access request had been “overtaken by events”, namely Parliament’s annulment action against the Commission’s Decision of December 2023. They clarified that privileged access to the documents at issue had already been refused by the Commission to Parliament under the inter-institutional Framework Agreement[25]. The Hungarian authorities had only consented to forwarding the relevant documents^[26] in the context of the litigation.

14. The Commission also registered a new access request for documents concerning the assessment of the thematic enabling conditions that Hungary did not fulfil. In June 2024, the Commission granted the complainant access to all identified documents with personal data redactions only.

15. In July 2024, the Commission adopted its confirmatory decision on the complainant’s access request. At confirmatory stage, the Commission identified three further letters (sent by Hungary to the Commission) to which it refused access, with the exception of two publicly available annexes. The Commission no longer relied on the need to protect its decision-making process but rather considered that the documents were covered in their entirety by the exceptions to protect court proceedings[27] and the purpose of an investigation.

16. The complainant provided comments on the meeting report and the Commission’s confirmatory decision. They also indicated that they now consider that the Commission has identified all relevant documents. The possible existence of further relevant documents was thus no longer part of the Ombudsman’s inquiry.

The Ombudsman's recommendation

17. Based on her inquiry, the Ombudsman was not convinced by the application of the exceptions to public access, which the Commission invoked to justify its refusal of public access to the requested documents.

18. The Ombudsman noted that the requested documents constitute exchanges between the Commission and the Hungarian authorities concerning Hungary’s fulfilment, under the CPR, of the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter as regards judicial independence. These formal exchanges form the basis of the Commission Decision of December 2023 that is currently challenged before the CJEU by Parliament. The exchanges in question were annexed to the Commission’s defence in this court case.

19. The Ombudsman acknowledged that the requested documents have a relevant link with the proceedings brought by Parliament, as required by EU case-law[28] to apply the exception for the protection of court proceedings to documents that are not drawn up for the purpose of specific court proceedings. However, the Ombudsman stressed that the fact that the documents are part of the court file does not in itself suffice to apply the exception. In particular, EU case-law requires that an EU institution demonstrate that the relevant court proceedings would be undermined by disclosure of the requested documents.

20. In this regard, the Ombudsman took account of the fact that Parliament already has privileged access to the requested documents as part of the court proceedings. Therefore, the Ombudsman considered that the usual justification for invoking the court proceedings exception, that is, to avoid that a party receives access to internal information of the other party, was not applicable.

21. The Commission had argued in its confirmatory decision that disclosure of the requested documents would impact the equality of arms by exposing the Commission’s arguments (and not those of Parliament) to “public debate and criticism that could unduly influence the outcome” of these proceedings. In relation to the sound administration of justice and the integrity of court proceedings, the Commission had claimed that disclosure would “expos[e] judicial activities to external pressure, albeit only in the perception of the public” and that its Decision “was very much publicly criticised by various NGOs and academia”.

22. However, the review of the documents by the Ombudsman inquiry team had shown that the documents contain a considerable amount of factual information and only limited ‘positions’ or ‘assessments’ of the Commission. Furthermore, given that the documents were exchanged between the Commission and the Hungarian authorities via official channels, the Ombudsman considered it clear that they are neither “purely internal document[s]”[29] nor was it apparent that they contain internal legal positions on contentious issues. In view of this, the Ombudsman considered that the requested documents contain the factual basis for the Commission’s assessment in its contested Decision.[30]

23. Overall, the Ombudsman remained unconvinced that the Commission’s ability to defend its Decision before the Court would be impeded by making the requested documents available to the public.  

24. In relation to the Commission’s application of the exception pertaining to the protection of the purpose of an investigation, the Ombudsman found that it was reasonable for the Commission to consider its assessment of enabling conditions under the CPR an ‘investigation’ for the purposes of Regulation 1049/2001. However, the Ombudsman was not convinced that the purpose of the Commission’s investigation under the CPR should continue to be protected following the adoption of its contested Decision of December 2023. More specifically, the Ombudsman questioned the Commission’s reliance on the CJEU’s view in Commission v Editions Odile Jacob[31] to argue that it may “be called upon to recommence its investigation activities with a view to the possible adoption of a new decision”, warranting the continued confidentiality of the requested documents.

25. First, the Ombudsman distinguished the case at hand from the judgment relied on by the Commission. She noted that the documents at issue in that judgment were internal memoranda that were part of a merger control file for which a general presumption of confidentiality[32] has been recognised. In the case at hand, the requested documents cannot be considered internal documents, and no general presumption of confidentiality has been recognised.

26. Second, the Ombudsman found that it would be disproportionate to exclude public scrutiny of the measures Member States proposed to remedy concerns and/or how the Commission assessed fulfilment with enabling conditions until the end of the current multiannual financial framework based on the mere possibility of a new assessment by the Commission. In this regard, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s investigation had become devoid of any object[33]. In particular, while the factual elements contained in the requested documents may remain relevant, the Commission’s assessment - which is reflected in the requested documents to a very limited extent only - would have to be adapted to take account of the CJEU’s view and more recent factual information in case the Court would annul the Commission’s contested Decision.  

27. Third, the Ombudsman considered it unlikely that the documents’ disclosure would harm the climate of mutual trust between the Commission and a Member State under the CPR. She stressed that the EU Treaties[34] establish a duty of sincere cooperation between the EU institutions and the Member States.

28. Finally, the Ombudsman shared her observations on the public interest in the requested documents. In light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the CPR[35], she considered that it is critical to inform the public of the Commission and the Hungarian authorities’ actions to protect the financial interests of the EU and to ensure that judicial independence and the rule of law more generally is respected. The Ombudsman took the view that the press release referred to by the Commission was too limited in substance to satisfy the public interest. Similarly, although the publication of the contested Decision did not form part of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, she encouraged the Commission to consider (re)publishing the Decision in light of the important public interest attached to the enabling conditions under the CPR.

29. In light of the above, the Ombudsman found that the Commission’s refusal to give wide public access to the documents at issue constituted maladministration. Therefore, she recommended[36] that the Commission reconsider its position on the access request with a view to providing significantly increased access.

The Commission’s opinion on the recommendation and the complainant’s comments

30. In its opinion on the Ombudsman’s recommendation[37], the Commission stated that the requested documents are preparatory documents underlying the adoption of its contested Decision of December 2023 as well as documents shared between Hungary and the Commission pursuant to Article 15(3) and (4) of the CPR.

31. The Commission also clarified that one of the documents identified is an adopted and published Hungarian legal act. This document was already disclosed prior to the submission of the court case by Parliament and, more recently, following other requests for access. Its publicly available version[38] could therefore be shared with the complainant.

Protection of court proceedings

32. The Commission disagreed with the Ombudsman’s view that the requested documents mainly contain factual elements and limited positions or assessments, rather than internal (legal) positions on contentious issues in the relevant court proceedings.

33. While the requested documents contain some factual elements, the Commission considered that they also contain explanations from the Hungarian authorities on the measures put in place and why they should be considered sufficient to fulfil the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter as regards judicial independence. In addition, according to the Commission, the letters that it sent to Hungary do not qualify as the factual basis of the contested Decision. They contain questions based on a legal interpretation of the Hungarian judicial reforms and the Commission’s legal assessment of the explanations provided by the Hungarian authorities.

34. Overall, the Commission contended that the requested documents contain “a legal assessment of the Hungarian legislation by the Hungarian authorities and the Commission, and legal views or questions on why the Hungarian legislation fulfilled the [horizontal enabling condition on the Charter]” and thus information “relevant to determine the adequacy of the statement of reasons of the contested Commission Decision” as it “[relates] to preliminary questions on an interpretation of the applicable standard of judicial independence” under the CPR. Since the Commission relied on the content of the documents to adopt its contested Decision and then to prepare its defence in the court proceedings brought by Parliament, it considered that this content cannot be revealed without undermining these proceedings.

35. In this regard, the Commission acknowledged that the principle of equality of arms “may not be invoked as the Parliament had privileged access to the documents in the context of the litigation”.

36. However, the Commission maintained its view that the serenity of the court proceedings should be preserved. Concretely, it argued that documents that are part of a court file should be protected from public disclosure to ensure the serenity of the exchanges of arguments by the parties and the deliberation of the Court. In this context specifically, the Commission said that there is a foreseeable and not purely hypothetical risk that the smooth conduct of the judicial activities would be compromised because the Commission’s contested Decision was criticised by different actors, such as civil society and academia.

37. The complainant reiterated their view that the requested documents cannot be internal documents as they have been exchanged between Hungary and the Commission. According to the complainant, internal documents, such as preparatory documents and messages exchanged between Commission services, must exist, but they did not target them in their access request.

38. In addition, the complainant remained unconvinced of the Commission’s argument that the serenity of the relevant court proceedings would be undermined if the documents at issue were disclosed. They considered that “while it is true that the December 2023 decision of the Commission has been subject to criticism, in [their] view it was precisely a consequence of the lack of transparency around this case, and the lack of clarity of the reasons underpinning the Commission’s decision”. Disclosure of the requested documents would contribute to a debate with a more factual basis while continued secrecy would feed different hypotheses and political theories that surround the Commission’s contested Decision.

Protection of the purpose of an investigation

39. The Commission stated that it undertook an individual assessment of the requested documents and that it did thus not rely on a general presumption of non-disclosure to refuse access to them. It said that the exception for the protection of the purpose of an investigation is applicable, even though the confidential character of the procedure under Article 15 of the CPR has not been recognised under EU law.

40. Furthermore, the Commission considered that its investigation has not become devoid of any object and that the prospect of a new assessment is not hypothetical given that the Court will issue a judgment on the Commission’s assessment of Hungary’s compliance with the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter. If the Court were to annul the Commission’s contested Decision, a new assessment would still need to take account of the requested documents, in addition to new elements that may arise.

41. Finally, the Commission argued that Hungary’s cooperation under the CPR, in accordance with the principle of loyal cooperation, does not automatically mean that the Hungarian authorities agree to the disclosure of their documents erga omnes under Regulation 1049/2001. It considered that the Hungarian authorities’ opposition to disclosure of the requested documents was justified and reiterated its view that disclosure of these documents could undermine Hungary’s willingness to cooperate. Similarly, the Commission claimed that disclosure would undermine its authority to carry out assessments under the CPR.

42. The complainant argued that Hungary has a strong financial incentive to cooperate with the Commission and that a potential lack of cooperation from Hungary’s side would not undermine the purpose of the Commission’s investigation under the CPR, which is to ensure that no EU funds are spent without fulfilment of the enabling conditions. If Hungary does not provide the required information, the Commission would have to decide that there is no proper judicial oversight and not make funds available to Hungary. In this regard, the complainant said that the Commission’s investigation under the CPR should be distinguished from infringement procedures as the latter’s purpose is to align domestic law with EU law, which is much more difficult to achieve without a Member State’s cooperation.

43. Lastly, the complainant considered that the Commission did not substantiate how disclosure of the documents at issue would undermine its authority and make it unable to carry out a new assessment of judicial independence in Hungary. In any event, they found that this argument appears to be rather connected to the Commission’s decision-making process, which is an exception that the Commission did not invoke at confirmatory stage.

Overriding public interest in disclosure

44. The Commission reiterated that there were several press releases[39] setting out its reasons for considering that Hungary’s judicial reforms addressed the concerns as regards judicial independence. Moreover, the Commission granted the widest possible access to documents concerning the assessment of the thematic enabling conditions that Hungary did not fulfil. Therefore, no overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents could be identified. 

45. In addition, the Commission emphasised that the requested documents had been drawn up in the context of an administrative bilateral procedure and that the contested Decision is addressed specifically to the Member State concerned. These documents are thus not legislative documents, to which a higher standard of transparency applies.

46. According to the complainant, it appears that the Commission is of the view that the requested documents do not contain any relevant information because all the relevant information had already been published. The complainant argued that this is contradictory to the Commission’s claim that disclosure of the requested documents would unduly influence the court proceedings, and undermine mutual trust and the Commission’s authority under the CPR.

The Ombudsman's assessment after the recommendation

47. The exception for the protection of court proceedings can be applied to documents that are not drawn up for the purpose of specific court proceedings where two conditions are fulfilled.[40] First, the requested documents have a relevant link with ongoing court proceedings. Second, their disclosure compromises the integrity of the court proceedings and the principle of equality of arms. The CJEU has stated that this could occur, “if parties were to benefit from privileged access to internal information belonging to the other party and closely connected to the legal aspects of pending or potential (but imminent) proceedings.”[41]

48. As regards the integrity of the court proceedings, the CJEU clarified that disclosure of a document setting out an institution’s position on a question at the heart of a pending dispute “would have the effect of exposing judicial activities to external pressure, albeit only in the perception of the public, and would disturb the serenity of the proceedings”.[42] Indeed, “the exclusion of judicial activities from the scope of the right of access to documents is justified in the light of the need to ensure that, throughout the court proceedings, the exchange of argument by the parties and the deliberations of the court concerned in the case before it take place in an atmosphere of total serenity, without any external pressure on judicial activities”.[43]

49. While the Ombudsman does not contest that the requested documents have a relevant link with the proceedings brought by Parliament, she remains unconvinced that the court proceedings would be compromised in view of the concrete content of the documents at issue.

50. Specifically, the Commission argued that the requested documents are ‘preparatory documents’ underlying the adoption of its contested Decision of December 2023 as well as documents shared between Hungary and the Commission under the CPR. According to the Commission, these documents contain “a legal assessment of the Hungarian legislation by the Hungarian authorities and the Commission, and legal views or questions on why the Hungarian legislation fulfilled the [horizontal enabling condition on the Charter]”.

51. The inspection of the documents by the Ombudsman inquiry team showed, however, that all requested documents are formal exchanges between the Commission and Hungarian authorities under the CPR and that they contain a considerable amount of factual elements, even if legal in nature. More specifically, the documents describe the (legislative) measures committed to by Hungary in accordance with its Recovery and Resilience Plan[44]. What those (legislative) measures are is clear from both the Plan and the Commission’s related Implementing Decisions.

52. Given that the documents were exchanged between the Commission and the Hungarian authorities via official channels, the Ombudsman maintains her view that they do not contain internal legal positions on contentious issues as required by the CJEU’s case-law.[45] The Commission’s internal legal assessment of the information provided by the Hungarian authorities is likely contained in a different set of documents.

53. While the Commission acknowledged that the principle of equality of arms is not at issue in this case, it reiterated its view that disclosure of documents that are part of a court file is prevented by the need to protect the serenity of the exchanges of arguments by the parties and the deliberations of the Court.

54. The Ombudsman cannot accept the Commission’s argument in this case. She stresses that the CJEU has recognised a general presumption of confidentiality for pleadings only[46]. For documents that are not drawn up for the purpose of specific court proceedings, even if they ultimately become part of the court file, a foreseeable and not purely hypothetical risk that the court proceedings would be undermined must be demonstrated. Given that Court files may even contain publicly available documents, the concrete content of documents in court files should always be considered. Therefore, the Ombudsman is not convinced that the Commission was justified to refuse access to the requested documents in their entirety based on the exception for the protection of court proceedings.

55. When it comes to the Commission’s reliance on the exception pertaining to the protection of the purpose of an investigation, the Ombudsman reiterates that the Commission’s investigation has been completed, even though its outcome is now contested. It is true, as the Commission argued, that it is not hypothetical that the Court will issue a judgment on the Commission’s assessment of Hungary’s compliance with the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter as regards judicial independence. However, if the Court were to annul the Commission’s contested Decision, the Commission would have to replace its assessment to take account of the CJEU’s view and more recent factual information.  

56. In addition, since the Commission indicated that its new assessment would still need to take into account the requested documents, the Ombudsman underlines that these documents describe judicial reforms that have, in the meantime, been undertaken by Hungary as outlined in the Commission’s press releases. Thus, in view of the content of the documents, she remains unconvinced that their disclosure would undermine the Commission’s (potential) follow-up investigations under the CPR or Hungary’s willingness to cooperate with the Commission in this context. In this regard, the Ombudsman observes that, “if the Commission does not have sufficient information, it cannot come to a positive decision [on the fulfilment of the horizontal enabling condition] and, therefore, in the interest of the proper implementation of the EU budget, could only adopt a negative one”.[47]

57. Overall, as the Commission’s role under the CPR is to continuously monitor compliance with the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter, the Ombudsman considers that no public scrutiny would be possible until the end of the current multiannual financial framework if the Commission’s arguments were to be accepted. This would be disproportionate, especially since, as the complainant pointed out, the ultimate purpose of the enabling condition on the Charter is that no EU funds are spent in breach of it.

58. Finally, the Ombudsman recalls that there is considerable public interest in the measures proposed by Member States to comply with the enabling conditions under the CPR and also in the manner in which the Commission assesses their fulfilment. She finds that the press releases referred to by the Commission are succinct and do not allow citizens to fully comprehend how and for what reasons the Commission took its contested Decision. This is aggravated by the non-publication of the contested Decision. As the Advocate General pointed out in her recent opinion in the pending court proceedings referred to by the Commission, given that “there are larger public interests behind [the contested] Decision, namely the disbursement of public money [...] the Commission owes an explanation not only to Hungary, but to the EU citizenry at large”.[48] In this regard, the Ombudsman emphasises that she has already called for greater (proactive) transparency on the Commission’s assessment of the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter to ensure public scrutiny and accountability.[49]

59. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has not provided convincing explanations as to why no wider public access could be given to the requested documents. She closes the inquiry, confirming her finding of maladministration.

Conclusion

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

Given that the Commission has not provided convincing explanations as to why no wider public access could be given to the requested documents, the Ombudsman confirms her finding of maladministration in this case.

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

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 14/04/2026

 

[1] For more information, see: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/2021-2027_en.

[2] For more information, see: https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/funding-management-mode/common-provisions-regulation_en.  

[3] Regulation 2021/1060 of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02021R1060-20251025.

[4] Article 9(1) of Regulation 2021/1060.

[5] Article 15 of Regulation 2021/1060.

[6] Annex III of Regulation 2021/1060.

[7] See: https://commission.europa.eu/publications/partnership-agreement-hungary-2021-2027_en.

[8] For more information, see: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7801.

[9] C(2022)10019, C(2022)10020, C(2022)10022, C(2022)10010, C(2022)10007, C(2022)10008, C(2022)10011, C(2022)10004, C(2022)10009 and C(2022)10018 (all available in the Register of Commission Documents).

[10] See: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7801. For an overview: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/741581/IPOL_BRI(2023)741581(ANN01)_EN.pdf#page=8 and https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7273. The Member States’ Recovery and Resilience Plans were agreed on with the Commission and approved by the Council in the context of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), a temporary EU funding programme created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (see: https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en).

[11] ibid.

[12] Council Implementing Decision 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022 on measures for the protection of the Union budget against breaches of the principles of the rule of law in Hungary, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022D2506.

[13] Regulation 2020/2092 of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.LI.2020.433.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2020:433I:TOC.

[14] For more information, see: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/12/12/rule-of-law-conditionality-mechanism/.  

[15] For more information, see: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_6465.

[16] Commission Decision on the approval and signature of the Commission assessment, in accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, of the fulfilment of the horizontal enabling condition ‘3. Effective application and implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ with regard to the deficiencies in judicial independence in Hungary of 13 December 2023, C(2023)9014, available to request at: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=C(2023)9014&lang=en.   

[17] For more information, see: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_6465.

[18] Commission Decision of 13.12.2023 on the reassessment, on the Commission’s initiative, of the fulfilment of the conditions under Article 4 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 following Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022 regarding Hungary, available at: https://commission.europa.eu/document/83f08b3a-bf4a-4462-a361-88d44692452b_en. In December 2024, the Commission maintained its view that the measures cannot yet be lifted, see: Commission Decision of 16.12.2024 pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation 2020/2092 of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, concerning a written notification from Hungary with regard to Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022, available at: https://commission.europa.eu/document/8003e1ad-8e79-4238-bf76-af1fcd2b5efe_en. As long as Hungary has not addressed all rule of law concerns under the conditionality regime, it cannot claim disbursements under the Recovery and Resilience Facility either. 

[19] Under 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.

[20] One document was disclosed with personal data redactions only (under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001). As the complainant does not contest these redactions, they fall outside of the scope of this inquiry.

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

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

[23] Action brought on 25 March 2024 – Parliament v Commission, Case C-225/24, see: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62024CN0225.

[24] The report of the meeting is available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/inspection-report/en/196933.

[25] Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, OJ L 304, 20/11/2010, p. 47–62, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02010Q1120%2801%29-20180207.

[26] In accordance with Article 2.1 of Annex II to the Framework Agreement.

[27] Article 4(2), second indent of Regulation 1049/2001.

[28] See, for instance, Judgment of 24 January 2024, Veneziana Energia Risorse Idriche Territorio Ambiente Servizi SpA (Veritas) v Commission, T-602/22, paragraph 58: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-602/22&language=EN.

[29] Judgment of 26 July 2023, Troy Chemical Company v Commission, T‑662/21, paragraph 65: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&td=ALL&num=T-662/21.

[30] The Ombudsman pointed out that the CJEU has stated that disclosure of documents “that contain elements constituting the factual basis of the Commission’s exercise of its powers [...] may prove to be necessary in order to meet the objectives” of Regulation 1049/2001, see Judgment of 15 September 2016, Philip Morris v Commission, T‑18/15, paragraph 73: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=T-18/15; Judgment of 15 September 2016, Philip Morris v Commission, T-796/14, paragraph 97: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-796/14.

[31] Judgment of 28 June 2012, Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob, C-404/10 P, paragraph 130: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-404/10&language=EN.

[32] ibid, paragraph 123.

[33] Judgment of 14 September 2022, Pollinis France v Commission, T‑371/20 and T‑554/20, paragraph 56: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-371/20&language=en as confirmed in the Judgment of 16 January 2025, Commission v Pollinis France, C-726/22 P: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&td=ALL&num=C-726/22%20P. 

[34] Article 4(3) TEU. See also: Pollinis France v Commission, paragraph 113.  

[35] Article 9(1) of Regulation 2021/1060.

[36] The Ombudsman’s Recommendation is available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/recommendation/en/199551.

[37] The Commission’s opinion on the Ombudsman’s Recommendation is available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/doc/correspondence/214485.

[38] https://magyarkozlony.hu/dokumentumok/e9aa99db5db7678c89fc54f3f818a1a06c204c92/megtekintes.

[39] Such as https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_6465 and https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7801.

[40] Philip Morris v Commission, T-796/14, paragraph 88; Judgment of 9 July 2025, Kaili v Parliament, T-1031/23, paragraph 41, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-1031/23&language=en.  

[41] Philip Morris v Commission, T-796/14, paragraph 90. See also: Philip Morris v Commission, T‑18/15, paragraph 65; Kaili v Parliament, paragraph 40; Veritas v Commission, paragraph 58 and Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2020, Compañía de Tranvías de la Coruña v Commission, T-485/18, paragraph 42, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62018TJ0485.

[42] Veritas v Commission, paragraph 67.

[43] ibid; Compañía de Tranvías de la Coruña v Commission, T-485/18, paragraph 40.

[44] For an overview, see: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/741581/IPOL_BRI(2023)741581(ANN01)_EN.pdf#page=8 and https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7273.

[45] See, more recently, Judgment of 25 February 2026, Edward William Batchelor v Commission, T-433/24, paragraphs 40-52: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0433.

[46] Judgment of 21 September 2010, Sweden and API v Commission, C‑514/07 P, C‑528/07 P and C‑532/07 P, paragraph 94: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&td=ALL&num=C-514/07%20P.

[47] Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta delivered on 12 February 2026, Parliament v Commission, C‑225/24, paragraph 84: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62024CC0225. 

[48] Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta delivered on 12 February 2026, paragraph 68. See also paragraphs 135-139 of the Opinion.

[49] Decision on how the European Commission monitors fundamental rights compliance in the context of EU funds granted to Greece for border management (case 1418/2023/VS), available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/200015.