Background to the complaint

1. In April 2025, a network of journalists sent an open letter[1] to the European Commission, raising concerns about systemic delays in the Commission’s handling of requests for public access to documents and about its use of the exceptions to transparency. To exchange with the journalists on the matter, the Commission organised a meeting that took place in May 2025.

2. In July 2025, the complainant, a journalist who had co-signed the open letter, made a request[2] for public access to the Commission, asking for disclosure of any documents related to the meeting with the journalists.

3. In August 2025, the Commission issued an initial decision granting the complainant wide public access to seven documents (subject to the redaction of personal data[3] in two documents). These included the minutes of the meeting, the Commission’s reply to the open letter, and five annexes to a briefing that had been drawn up in preparation of the meeting. The Commission also granted access to parts of the briefing itself, redacting (besides personal data) four out of 15 pages based on the need to protect its decision-making.[4]

4. The complainant asked the Commission to review its decision (by making a confirmatory application), to the extent that it was based on the exception for the protection of its decision-making. The complainant did not question the redaction of personal data.

5. When the complainant did not receive a confirmatory reply from the Commission within the prescribed time limit (which is considered an implicit negative reply), the complainant turned to the Ombudsman, raising concerns about the delay incurred by the Commission in dealing with their access request and about its refusal of public access.

The inquiry

6. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s implicit refusal to give the widest public access possible to the briefing at issue.

7. In the context of a strategic inquiry^[5], the Ombudsman has already found that the Commission’s systemic delays in processing public access requests amount to maladministration.^[6] Therefore, while the Ombudsman regretted the delay in the Commission’s response to the complainant’s confirmatory application, she did not open an inquiry into the reasons for the delay in this specific case.

8. As a first step, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to issue an explicit confirmatory decision.

9. The Commission subsequently adopted a confirmatory decision, granting the complainant significantly increased public access to the briefing at issue, subject to the redaction of personal data only. The Commission stated that it had to redact the names, functions and details about the professional activities of individuals that would make them identifiable. Further, it said that the individuals concerned were either non-senior staff members or persons external to the Commission who are not public figures.

10. Given that, when redacting personal data, the Commission redacted some sentences in the document in full, the complainant was concerned that it might have applied the exception for the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual too broadly. The Ombudsman thus proceeded to inspect the document.

The Ombudsman's assessment

11. The concept of ‘personal data’[7] is very broad. It covers any information related to an identified or identifiable person. The information does not need to be linked to a person’s private life. Information concerning a person’s professional activity can also constitute personal data, namely if it allows for the identification of the individual concerned.

12. It follows that the kind of information described by the Commission, that is, names, functions and details about someone’s professional activities, constitutes personal data within the meaning of the EU legislation on data protection (Regulation 2018/1725[8]).

13. Based on the inquiry team’s inspection of the document at issue, the Ombudsman can confirm that the redacted information does not go beyond the description provided by the Commission. It constitutes personal data.

14. Given that the complainant did not request disclosure of any personal data (and, therefore, did not put forward a reason justifying the ‘necessity’ to have access to such data, as would be required by Regulation 2018/1725[9]), the Commission’s refusal to give public access to this information was justified.

Conclusion

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

Given that the complainant has now been granted wide public access to the document at issue, subject to the redaction of personal data only, the case is closed with the conclusion that it has been settled.

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

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 16/12/2025

 

[1] The letter is available at: https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/14/letter-journalists-commission-transparency.pdf.

[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] In accordance with Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001.

[4] In accordance with Article 4(3), second subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001.

[5] 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.

[6] Decision in the above strategic inquiry OI/2/2022/OAM: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/175321.

[7] Article 3(1) of Regulation 2018/1725 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: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/oj.

[8] See footnote 7 above.

[9] Article 9(1) of Regulation 2018/1725.