President Court of Justice

Dear President,

I have received a complaint against the Court of Justice of the European Union about its decision on the above request for public access to documents.

The complainant requested public access to the declarations of interests submitted by all judges and advocates general of the Court of Justice and the General Court since 1 January 2018, including the previous versions of declarations that might have been subsequently updated.

In response to the confirmatory application, the Court pointed out that it publishes on its website the most recent declarations of interest submitted by the current judges and advocates general, excluding confidential annexes. At the same time, the Court noted that its decision on public access to documents applies only to documents drawn up or received “as part of the exercise of its administrative functions”,[1] whereas the requested declarations constitute documents related to its judicial functions. This is because, under Article 5(1) of the Court of Conduct for members and former members of the Court, the declarations of interest aim to prevent any potential or perceived conflict of interest when members deal with a court case.[2] Therefore, in the Court’s view, these declarations contribute to ensuring the Court’s independence and impartiality, as well as the public perception thereof, inherent in the exercise of its judicial tasks.

Due to the judicial nature of the requested documents, the Court considered that it cannot grant public access to the currently unpublished declarations submitted by former members and the previous versions of the declarations submitted by current members.

The Court also referred to the fact that, in any case, the requested documents contain personal data, whereas the complainant did not put forward a necessity to have this data transferred to him for a specific purpose in the public interest.[3]

Relying on the information provided by the Court in its confirmatory decision,[4] the complainant challenged this decision by making a complaint to the Ombudsman under Article 228 TFEU.

I have decided to open an inquiry to seek clarifications from the Court regarding how it distinguishes between documents relating to its judicial and administrative activities. Members of the public, who are interested in obtaining access to the certain documents of the Court, may not always have sufficient information to make this distinction.

I consider that this complaint could help clarifying the following points.

(1) The judicial nature of the documents at issue

The Court noted in its confirmatory decision that the obligation to declare interests imposed on its members ensures their impartiality and independence, which are crucial attributes for exercising judicial functions. This is why, in the Court’s view, the requested documents are closely linked to judicial functions.[5]

The protection of judicial documents from public disclosure, under the fourth subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, is a functional safeguard for the proper fulfilment of the Court’s mandate. According to the Court’s case law, “the limitations placed on the application of the principle of transparency in relation to judicial activities pursue the same objective: that is to say, they seek to ensure that exercise of the right of access to the documents of the institutions does not undermine the protection of court proceedings. In that regard, it should be noted that the protection of court proceedings implies, in particular, that compliance with the principles of equality of arms and the sound administration of justice must be ensured”.[6]

I note that the Court itself published some of the requested documents on its website, under Article 5(8) of the Code of Conduct for its members and former members.[7] However, the Court subsequently removed them once the members concerned completed their judicial mandates. In any case, the previously published documents have already entered the public domain. If these documents indeed related to the Court’s judicial tasks under the fourth subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, which the Court appears to interpret in this case as preventing public disclosure of any judicial documents, the fact remains that the Court has published on its website such documents proactively.

Furthermore, the General Court has already held that obligations imposed by the Code of Conduct on the Court’s members do not relate exclusively to their judicial activities but also to their general conduct outside the courtroom. Thus, the Code aims to ensure the Court’s broader institutional autonomy and the protection of public trust in it. On this basis, the General Court classified certain documents related to the Code of Conduct as falling within the scope of the Court’s decision on public access to its administrative documents.[8]

In addition, I note that members of other EU institutions,[9] as well as the staff of EU institutions and bodies,[10] are all also required to submit declarations of interest, in view of the need to ensure their institutions’ autonomy and public trust in their adherence to the highest ethical standards. Requests for public access to documents of these EU institutions and bodies are subject to individual assessment under the EU legislation on public access to documents (Regulation 1049/2001[11]). In this context and by comparison, it would be useful to clarify why declarations of interest submitted by the Court’s members already published on the Court’s website should be classified as judicial documents and, therefore, be exempted from any disclosure in response to requests for public access to documents.

(2) Some of the requested documents have already entered the public domain

Although the Court considers that it cannot disclose the requested documents as they constitute judicial documents, it acknowledges that some of them - namely, the declarations submitted under the current Code of Conduct - have already entered the public domain.

Under Article 5(8) of the Code of Conduct, which entered into force on 7 October 2021,[12] the Court must publish the declarations of interest made by judges and advocates general on its website. The fact that the Court subsequently removed the declarations of former members does not change the fact that these documents – including the personal data contained therein – had at a certain moment in time entered the public domain.[13] Third parties had the possibility to lawfully obtain these documents during the relevant period by downloading them from the Court’s website. Therefore, it would be useful to clarify why the Court considers that it can no longer disclose previously published documents, even assuming they relate to its judicial tasks.

(3) Need to demonstrate the necessity of the transfer of personal data

I acknowledge that, irrespective of the nature of the requested documents, the Court may consider that the confidential annexes to the declarations of interest and the declarations or their previous versions submitted before the current Code of Conduct entered into force, which the Court never published on its website, cannot be disclosed due to the need to protect the privacy and integrity of individuals in line with the relevant exception to public access under the Court’s decision on public access to documents.[14]  

At the same time, I note that the Court relied on this argument only at the confirmatory stage. As a result, it informed the complainant about the need to justify the necessity of transferring personal data to him only in its response to his confirmatory application, whereas it had not provided this information in the initial decision.

In this context, it would be useful to discuss whether the complainant had an effective opportunity to put forward his arguments in this regard.

I have therefore decided that it is necessary for my inquiry team to meet with the relevant representatives of the Court to obtain further clarifications on the above issues. I would be grateful if your office could contact Mr Michał Krajewski, the responsible Inquiries Officer, to agree the arrangements for the meeting to take place by 18 September 2026.

Information that the Court considers to be confidential will not be disclosed to the complainant or any other person without the Court’s prior agreement.[15]

Yours sincerely,

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 25/06/2026

 

[1] Article 1(1) of Decision concerning public access to documents held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the exercise of its administrative functions, C 45/2, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020D0210(01).

[2] Code of conduct for Members and former Members of the Court of Justice of the European Union, OJ C 397/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=oj:JOC_2021_397_R_0001.

[3] In line with Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and the Council 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 (…), OJ L 295/39, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/oj/eng.

[4] Point 31 of the Court’s decision in Case 0002/2026C.

[5] Point 17 of the Court’s decision in Case 0002/2026C.

[6] See Court of Justice, Judgment of 21 September 2010, Joined Cases C‑514/07 P, C‑528/07 P and C‑532/07 P, Sweden v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2010:541, paragraphs 84-85, https://juris.curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=84028&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=253005. See also, Judgment of 18 July 2017, C-213/15 P, Commission v Patrick Breyer, ECLI:EU:C:2017:563, paragraph 53, https://juris.curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=192887&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=198487.

[7] Cited in footnote 2.

[8] General Court, Judgment of 20 September 2019, Franklin Dehousse v Court of Justice, T‑433/17, ECLI:EU:T:2019:632, paragraphs 88-92 and 96.

[9] For instance, see Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 31 January 2018 on a Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission, OJ C 65/7, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018D0221(02); see also Article 14 of the Code of Conduct for the Members and former Members of the Court [the European Court of Auditors], OJ L 128/102, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022Q0502%2801%29.

[10] Articles 11 and 11a of Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, OJ P 45/1385, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/1962/31(1)/2014-05-01/eng.

[11] Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj/eng.

[12] Article 11(1) of the Code of Conduct.

[13] General Court, Judgment of 26 April 2018, Espírito Santo Financial v ECB, T‑251/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:234, paragraphs 146, 149-150; Judgment of 30 January 2008, Case T‑380/04, Ioannis Terezakis v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2008:19, paragraphs 100-101.

[14] Article 3(1) of the Decision concerning public access to documents held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the exercise of its administrative functions, cited above.

[15] Please clearly mark such material ‘Confidential’. Encrypted emails can be sent to our dedicated mailbox. Information and documents of this kind will be deleted from the European Ombudsman’s files shortly after the inquiry has ended.