Background to the complaint

1. In May 2022, the European Commission issued a legislative proposal[1] laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse. The Commission’s proposal required providers of communication services, such as webmail messaging services and internet telephony, to proactively detect online child sexual abuse materials and activities involving child grooming. The proposal is currently being discussed in interinstitutional negotiations (so-called ‘trilogues’).

2. The complainant, an academic researcher, made a request for public access[2] to the Commission in November 2024, seeking access to all emails (including attachments) and minutes of meetings between Commission officials and a US-based organisation active in combating child sexual abuse and between the Commission and the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) concerning the EU’s efforts to combat online child sexual abuse. The request covered the period from 1 September 2023 to 15 November 2024. The Commission registered the request under reference EASE 2024/6083.

3. The Commission adopted its initial reply in March 2025. It identified 14 documents as falling within the scope of the request, mainly e-mail exchanges and mission reports. The Commission refused access to three documents in their entirety and gave partial access to the remaining 11 documents. In doing so, it referred to several exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents (Regulation 1049/2001), arguing that disclosure could undermine the protection of personal data and its decision-making process, as well as the public interest as regards public security.

4. On 4 April 2025, the complainant asked the Commission to review its decision (by making a ‘confirmatory application’), contesting the (partial) refusal of access. He argued that:

• the Commission had failed to demonstrate a specific and actual risk to public security, as required by EU case law,
• the documents were 12 to 18 months old at the time of the confirmatory application, making it unlikely that they contained operationally sensitive information,
• there was an overriding public interest in disclosure, given the significant public debate surrounding the proposed Regulation and its fundamental rights implications.

5. Following a request for an update, the Commission explained in June 2025 that it would not be able to reply to the confirmatory application within the applicable time limits due to a high volume of access requests.

6. Having received no further reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman on 16 July 2025.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s implicit refusal to give public access to the documents at issue.[3]

8. As a first step, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to adopt a confirmatory decision without undue delay and not later than 15 September 2025. The Ombudsman also informed the Commission that, should the delay persist, she would inspect the documents at issue.

9. In the absence of a confirmatory decision, the Ombudsman requested the Commission to provide copies of the 14 documents at issue to her inquiry team for inspection. On 18 February 2026, the Ombudsman sent a final reminder to the Commission, urging it to adopt the confirmatory decision without further delay.

10. The Commission adopted its confirmatory decision on the complainant’s public access request on 4 March 2026. The confirmatory decision granted (wider) partial access to all documents, with certain parts redacted to protect privacy and the public interest as regards public security.[4]

11. The Ombudsman asked the complainant whether he wished to make any comments on the confirmatory decision. The complainant said that he had no further comments at this stage.

The Ombudsman’s assessment

12. This inquiry concerned the Commission’s implicit refusal to give (full) public access to the 14 documents identified by the Commission as falling within the scope of the complainant’s request.

13. During the inquiry, the Commission adopted an explicit confirmatory decision which replaced the implicit refusal. In its confirmatory decision, the Commission granted partial access to all 14 documents, including to those documents to which access had initially been refused in full.

14. The complainant, in his comments on the Commission’s confirmatory decision, did not challenge the remaining redactions. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the complaint into the Commission’s implicit refusal has been settled by the partial access now granted. She welcomes the broader transparency achieved in this case.

15. That said, the Ombudsman deeply regrets the delay in handling the complainant’s request. The time limit set by the Ombudsman to reply to his confirmatory application expired on 15 September 2025, and it still took the Commission more than five months to adopt its final position on the access request from that date. This is not acceptable. More generally, the Ombudsman is aware that the Commission continues to incur delays in dealing with public access requests. She continues to closely monitor the matter based on complaints submitted to her.

Conclusion

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

By adopting an explicit confirmatory decision on the complainant’s access request, in which the Commission granted (wider) partial access to the 14 documents at issue, the Commission has settled the complaint.

That said, the Ombudsman regrets the Commission’s delay in adopting the confirmatory decision, which persisted even after the Ombudsman opened her inquiry.

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

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 05/05/2026

 

[1] Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A209%3AFIN.

[2] Under Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj.

[3] Article 8(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 lays down that “Failure by the institution to reply within the prescribed time limit shall be considered as a negative reply and entitle the applicant to institute court proceedings against the institution and/or make a complaint to the Ombudsman”.

[4] The Commission no longer relied on the exception concerning its decision-making process.