Dear Mr X,

You recently made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission. You are concerned that the Commission failed to retain (and to give public access to) text messages that its President exchanged with the head of a pharmaceutical company in the context of COVID-19 vaccine negotiations.

The Ombudsman has already looked into the Commission’s refusal to give public access to the text messages at issue (case 1316/2021/MIG).[1] In the context of that inquiry, the Ombudsman found that the Commission had committed maladministration, as it had not conducted a proper search to identify the text messages.[2] More specifically, in dealing with the access request, the Commission had asked its President’s private office (Cabinet) to search only for documents that fulfil its recording criteria. When the Cabinet did not identify any text messages, the Commission did not question this result, despite a media interview where the Commission President had referred to relevant text messages.

After the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission’s refusal to grant public access to the text messages at issue was brought before the General Court by another applicant who had received the same reply from the Commission as the complainant in case 1316/2021/MIG. The General Court annulled the Commission’s confirmatory decision[3], finding that the Commission had failed to provide plausible explanations justifying the (alleged) non-possession of the requested text messages.

The Ombudsman understands that the Commission has now adopted a new confirmatory decision on the applicant’s access request, saying that it has conducted a renewed search for possible text messages, including on its President’s mobile phone, but that this search has not yielded any results. Amongst other reasons, the Commission stated that the text messages, which had existed in the past, had not been retained based on an assessment by the President’s Head of Cabinet who had, in summer 2021, concluded that their content was “short-lived” and did “not require any follow-up”. The explanation that the text messages no longer exist in 2025 appears plausible. However, in view of the Commission’s new confirmatory decision, you are concerned that the Commission might have deleted the text messages after you and other members of the public had requested public access to them.

The Ombudsman shares your concerns about the Commission’s possible failure to retain documents subject to public access requests. She has stated in the past that, “as a general rule, an EU institution, body, office or agency should not delete a document that is subject to a request for public access until the process of challenging a refusal to grant access is completed. Having the document at hand allows a proper review to be carried out of the refusal, including by the European Ombudsman and/or the Court of Justice of the EU.” [4]

However, as regards the text messages at issue in your complaint, the Ombudsman has already reviewed the Commission’s file in the context of the inquiry into case 1316/2021/MIG. Based on the inspection of the file in that case, it would be unlikely that the precise timeline of events could be established in the context of a new inquiry four years later.

The Ombudsman has therefore decided to pursue the important matter you raise, that is, the non-retention of text messages subject to a public access request, within the scope of another inquiry with the Commission, which she opened today. This other case (2482/2025/NH[5]) concerns public access to a message that the French President sent to the Commission President in January 2024 through the Signal application. It appears that, in that case too, the Commission did not retain the instant message at issue although it had received a request for public access to it. As that case is more recent, the Ombudsman expects to be able to reconstruct the timeline of events in detail, which will enable a meaningful inquiry into the concerns that you have also brought to our attention.

The Ombudsman has therefore closed your complaint.[6]

In light of the importance of the matter you raise, the Ombudsman has nevertheless informed the Commission about your complaint. Please find attached, for your information, the Ombudsman’s letter to the Commission.

Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the practical recommendations[7] on the recording of text messages that the Ombudsman issued in the context of her strategic work and that have been shared with all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.

Thank you for having contacted the European Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely,

Rosita Hickey
Director of Inquiries

Strasbourg, 19/09/2025

 

[1] The Ombudsman’s inquiry into the European Commission’s refusal of public access to text messages exchanged between the Commission President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company on the purchase of a COVID-19 vaccine (case 1316/2021/MIG): https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/59777.

[2] See the Ombudsman’s decision in case 1316/2021/MIG: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/158295.

[3] See Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2025, Stevi and the NYT v Commission, T-36/23: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=299492&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=56780.

[4] See the European Ombudsman’s Decision on how the European Commission dealt with a request for public access to emails from its representatives based in Greece concerning the migration situation in two hotspots (case 211/2022/TM): https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/157768.

[5] You can follow that inquiry at the following case page: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/case/70364 (the link will become active in two working days’ time.)

[6] Full information on the procedure and rights pertaining to complaints can be found at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/document/70707.