Background to the complaint

1. The European Commission and the Presidency of the Council of the EU established a High-Level Forum on the Future of Criminal Justice in 2025.[1] The Forum brought together Member States, the European Parliament, representatives of academia, practitioners, lawyers’ associations and civil society, and aimed to reflect on how EU criminal law can respond to evolving challenges such as cybercrime, terrorism and cross-border organised crime. Throughout the year, four plenary meetings were organised, and the Forum concluded its work with the adoption of a final report.

2. During the second plenary meeting of the Forum, in May 2025, the Deputy Executive Director of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) gave a speech entitled ‘Europol: Its vision for the future in criminal investigations’ in the context of a working session on EU agencies and bodies.[2] More specifically, the Deputy Executive Director spoke about recent developments at Europol and the future of the agency following the Commission’s ‘ProtectEU’ Strategy[3] of April 2025. In that Strategy, the Commission put forward that it will adopt a legislative proposal to transform Europol into a truly operational law enforcement agency in 2026.

3. Against this background, the complainant, a network of non-governmental organisations, made a request for public access to Europol in August 2025. It sought access to the text or notes for the speech of the Deputy Executive Director and supporting visuals, if any.

4. In its reply of September 2025, Europol identified a briefing note containing the relevant speech as falling within the scope of the complainant’s access request. Europol granted wide access to the document, solely redacting an introductory section that was considered to fall outside the scope of the request, personal data, and a part of the speech concerning organisational proposals and points of discussion. To justify the redaction of this part of the speech, Europol invoked exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents (Regulation 1049/2001[4]), arguing that disclosing it would undermine the public interest as regards public security[5] and a decision-making process[6].

5. The complainant asked Europol to review its position (by making a ‘confirmatory application’). The complainant did not contest Europol’s redaction of the introductory section or personal data but took issue with Europol’s reliance on the public security and decision-making exceptions and argued that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the redacted organisational proposals and points of discussion.

6. In October 2025, Europol adopted its confirmatory decision. It confirmed its initial position and maintained that “information related to the future of the Agency, on which deliberations are still ongoing,” cannot be disclosed.

7. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in November 2025.

The inquiry

8. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into Europol’s decision to refuse full access to the requested document under Regulation 1049/2001.

9. During the inquiry, the Ombudsman received Europol’s additional views on the complaint and the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the requested document.

Arguments presented

10. In its replies to the access request, Europol said that the redacted part of the speech concerns organisational proposals and points of discussion related to the future of the agency. The deliberations on the future of Europol are ongoing and these proposals and points thus do not reflect definitive positions. Therefore, Europol considered that revealing this information could affect the development of its strategies and the trust and cooperation between Europol, Member States and partners, ultimately jeopardising Europol’s tasks, investigations and operational activities of Member States, third parties or EU bodies.

11. More specifically, according to Europol, disclosure could jeopardise the exchange of views among stakeholders and entrench preliminary positions, which “could significantly impair the integrity of the consultative process, harming thorough evaluations, reducing flexibility and potentially restricting the exploration of several solutions and strategies, fundamental to the formulation of balanced and well-informed decisions”. In particular, disclosure could result in an incorrect representation of views and positions negatively impacting the ongoing discussions which should consider a vast range of options and solutions for Europol to continue its support for Member States and partners. On that basis, Europol concluded that this part of the speech is covered by the exceptions to public access for the protection of the public interest as regards public security and a decision-making process. 

12. Moreover, Europol stated that the actual delivery of the speech does not necessarily verbatim coincide with the text since the requested document was only a supporting document for the speaker. In addition, Europol contended that the fact that the document was drafted in preparation of the Forum does not imply that the redacted parts cannot be sensitive as they were meant to be shared in a Forum attended by specific stakeholders only and even participating staff members of Europol had to register to attend.

13. Finally, Europol said that while it could not identify an overriding public interest in disclosure, it did give the widest possible access to the document at issue in view of the public interest in the topic.

14. In its additional views on the complaint, Europol stressed that the requested document is an internal briefing note that formed the basis for the Deputy Executive Director to make a free, oral intervention in a non-public setting. It also reiterated that it cannot prematurely disclose considerations that are not final, especially as it is the prerogative of the EU institutions to decide what themes should be considered in the legislative process. Europol can only provide technical information to assist the Commission in this context.

15. The complainant pointed out that the Forum is mainly composed of external stakeholders and that the redacted part of the speech was thus not meant for internal use. Furthermore, it noted that the parts of the speech that were disclosed show that it elaborated on directions for Europol’s future in a broad manner. Therefore, the complainant considered it to be unlikely that the redacted section contains sensitive or operational information. In this regard, it also claimed that the fact that the delivered speech can deviate from the text is irrelevant as the intention of sharing these points with external stakeholders is what matters.

16. In view of this, the complainant was not convinced that Europol sufficiently substantiated the risk for its decision-making process or the performance of its tasks. It said that it is unclear how the decision-making process on Europol’s future would be undermined given that the decision on this is taken by the co-legislators upon a proposal of the Commission. Referring to case-law of the EU’s General Court[7], the complainant added that the state of progress of the discussions is not relevant to invoke the exception for an ongoing decision-making process and that Europol cannot assume that the wider public, as opposed to the stakeholders attending the Forum, cannot distinguish between preliminary views and final decisions.

17. The complainant also contended that an overriding public interest in disclosure exists given that Europol’s activities impact a wide range of individuals and their fundamental rights and that those activities have recently been criticised[8]. Therefore, the complainant found it crucial that a public debate is held concerning methods, limits and conditions of police cooperation and the enhancement of Europol’s powers (also when it comes to the exchange or collection of personal data). It stated that, if Europol were to disclose what it considers its reform could look like, an open and transparent debate with all relevant stakeholders and not only those invited to the Forum could take place. Similarly, if it were known to the public what proposals are considered and assessed, stakeholders could submit more meaningful contributions in the context of the Commission’s official consultation process[9] on the new Europol Regulation.

18. Finally, the complainant said that, on 4 November 2025, the Deputy Executive Director shared his vision for the future of Europol with the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group (JPSG) in a meeting livestreamed by the European Parliament. The complainant questioned whether the redacted part of the speech goes into much more detail than in that debate on policy options and areas of focus for Europol’s reform. It asked the Ombudsman to inspect the document at issue for that reason. 

The Ombudsman's assessment

19. The EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies enjoy a wide margin of discretion when determining whether disclosing a document would undermine the protection of the public interests listed in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation 1049/2001, which includes public security.[10] As such, the Ombudsman’s inquiry sought to assess if there was a manifest error in Europol’s assessment in that regard.

20. Europol argued that disclosure of the redacted part of the speech would undermine trust and cooperation with its partners and ultimately jeopardise its strategies, tasks and investigations as well as operational activities of Member States and partners. In this regard, Europol stressed that the proposed speaking points were meant to be shared in a Forum attended by a limited number of stakeholders only. In addition, it held that the requested document was a supporting document only and that the actual delivery of the speech could diverge from the text.

21. The Ombudsman notes that the agenda of the second plenary meeting[11] of the Forum makes it clear that it was attended by representatives of EU institutions and bodies, Member States, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, and academics. While the event may not have been open to the public at large, it was thus attended by stakeholders external to Europol and the Ombudsman finds it difficult to understand how Europol’s Deputy Executive Director could be prepared to share information that would undermine public security in such a setting.[12]

22. Rather, Europol’s concern appears to be that further disclosure of the requested document could undermine the ongoing deliberations on the future of the agency. Therefore, Europol also relied on the exception for the protection of a decision-making process.

23. To rely on that exception, Europol must show that access is likely to bring serious harm to the decision-making process in a reasonably foreseeable and non-hypothetical way.[13] In this regard, the General Court of the EU made it clear that a reference to the internal or preparatory nature of a document does not suffice[14]. The Ombudsman considers that Europol’s justification for invoking the exception for the protection of a decision-making process does not meet the standard set in EU case-law. Moreover, the review of the requested document by the Ombudsman inquiry team has shown that most of the redacted information is rather general in nature.

24. As regards Europol’s concern about discrepancies between the requested document and the delivered speech, the Ombudsman recalls that it is always possible to add a disclaimer that prepared speaking points or speeches should be checked against the actual delivery[15].

25. Overall, while the Ombudsman welcomes that Europol granted wide partial access to the speech, she is not convinced by Europol’s explanation that further disclosure would undermine the public interest as regards public security or the decision-making process surrounding the future of the agency.

26. That said, as mentioned by the complainant, a very similar discussion on the future of Europol was organised in the JPSG and livestreamed by Parliament[16]. In this context, the Ombudsman does not see a useful purpose in continuing her inquiry. The Ombudsman suggests, however, that Europol reconsider its position in light of her observations put forward in this decision and the contents of the public discussion in the JPSG, with a view to granting further access to the requested document.

Conclusion

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

The Ombudsman is not convinced by Europol’s position that further access to the requested document was prevented by the need to protect the public interest as regards public security and a decision-making process. However, given that a very similar discussion on the future of Europol was organised in the JPSG and livestreamed by Parliament, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified in this case.

The complainant and Europol will be informed of this decision.

Suggestion for improvement

Europol should reconsider its position on the access request and grant further access to the requested document in light of the Ombudsman’s observations put forward in this decision and the contents of the public discussion on the future of the agency in the JPSG.

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 09/01/2026

 

[1] For more information, see: https://commission.europa.eu/high-level-fora-justice-growth-and-future-eu-criminal-justice_en.

[2] For the full programme of the second plenary meeting, see: https://commission.europa.eu/document/dcc79b52-7ed3-4405-b364-1958e4cbddbb_en. The speaking points are available at: https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-events/publications/second-high-level-plenary-forum-future-of-eu-criminal-justice-20%E2%80%9321-may-2025.

[3] Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025DC0148.

[4] Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32001R1049, applicable to Europol in accordance with Article 65(1) of Regulation 2016/794 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02016R0794-20220628. The detailed rules for applying Regulation 1049/2001 are set out in Europol’s Management Board Decision of 13 December 2016, available at: https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/decision_of_the_mb_rules_applying_reg_1049_2001.pdf

[5] Article 4(1)(a), first indent of Regulation 1049/2001.

[6] Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001.

[7] Judgment of 22 March 2011, Access Info Europe v Council, T-233/09, paragraphs 69 and 76, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=T-233/09.

[8] The complainant referred to https://wearesolomon.com/mag/format/investigation/frontex-unlawfully-shared-thousands-of-peoples-personal-data-with-europol/.

[9] See: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14638-Law-enforcement-cooperation-new-Europol-regulation-proposal-/public-consultation_en.

[10] Judgment of 1 February 2007, Sison v Council, C‑266/05 P, paragraph 64, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-266/05.

[11] See: https://commission.europa.eu/document/dcc79b52-7ed3-4405-b364-1958e4cbddbb_en.

[12] See, similarly, Decision on how the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) dealt with a request for public access to documents related to the fundamental rights aspects of its work (case 851/2024/SF), available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/214746.

[13] Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011, Toland v Parliament, T-471/08, paragraphs 71 and 78: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=T-471/08; Judgment of 16 January 2025, Commission v Pollinis France, C-726/22 P, paragraph 63: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&td=ALL&num=C-726/22%20P.

[14] Judgment of 18 June 2025, Zver v Commission, T-235/24, paragraph 105: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&td=ALL&num=T-235/24.

[15] See Proposal for a solution on how the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) dealt with a request for public access to documents related to the fundamental rights aspects of its work (case 851/2024/SF), paragraph 24, available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/solution/en/214549. 

[16] See: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20251023IPR31096/parliamentary-scrutiny-of-europol-access-to-data-environmental-crimes-in-focus and https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/webstreaming/committee-on-civil-liberties-justice-and-home-affairs-ordinary-meeting-jpsg_20251104-0900-COMMITTEE-LIBE.