Background to the complaint

1. The complainant, an academic researcher, made a request for public access[1] to the European Commission in August 2024, seeking access to documents related to coffee development programmes in Ethiopia, in particular documents pertaining to the ‘EU-Coffee Action for the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia’ (EUCAFE Action). The documents requested related the work of the Commission (Directorate-General for International Partnerships - DG INTPA), the European External Action Service and the Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia. The Commission registered the request under reference EASE 2024/4428.

2. The Commission contacted the complainant on 20 September 2024. It identified 86 documents as falling within the scope of request. The Commission explained that it would not be able to process all documents within the prescribed time limit because of their volume, the need to undertake a page-by-page assessment and to consult third parties. The Commission proposed to the complainant, as a fair solution under the EU legislation on public access to documents (Regulation 1049/2001),[2] to reduce the scope of the request.

3. The complainant accepted the Commission’s request but raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of the request.[3]

4. The Commission adopted its initial reply on 13 December 2024. It identified 36 documents as falling within the scope of the request. The Commission granted full access to two documents, refused access to three documents in their entirety and gave partial access to the remaining 31 documents. In doing so, it referred to several exceptions under Regulation 1049/2001, arguing that disclosure could undermine the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, the protection of personal data and commercial interests, as well as the protection of the public interest as regards international relations.

5. On 7 January 2025, the complainant asked the Commission to review its decision (by making a ‘confirmatory application’), contesting the (partial) refusal of access.

6. The Commission extended the deadline to reply to the confirmatory application until 18 February 2025.

7. Having received no further reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman on 20 May 2025.

The inquiry

8. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s failure to reply within the deadlines established by Regulation 1049/2001 to the complainant’s confirmatory application.

9. The Ombudsman asked the Commission to adopt a confirmatory decision without undue delay and not later than 10 July 2025. The Commission did not adhere to the time limit set by the Ombudsman.

10. Following several exchanges with the Commission on the matter, on 20 January 2026, the Commission explained that its assessment of the confirmatory application was not yet finalised and that it was unable to indicate a specific timeline by when it could be completed. 

11. On 20 April 2026, the Ombudsman sent a final reminder to the Commission, urging it to adopt a confirmatory decision without further delay and by 12 May 2026 at the latest. The Ombudsman indicated to the Commission that, in the absence of a confirmatory decision by that date, she intends to close the case with a finding of maladministration.

12. The Commission did not adopt a confirmatory decision by 12 May 2026. Instead, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that it was not in position to provide the complainant with a final reply by that day. It could neither provide the Ombudsman with an indicative timeline for the adoption of its confirmatory decision.

The Ombudsman’s assessment

13. According to Regulation 1049/2001, an EU institution should, within 15 working days from registration of the confirmatory application, either grant access to the document requested or, in a written reply, state the reasons for the total or partial refusal. The time limit of 15 working days may be extended by a further 15 working days in exceptional circumstances.^[4]

14. The complainant in this case has been waiting for a reply to his confirmatory application for over fifteen months, that is, since 18 February 2025. Moreover, the time limit set by the Ombudsman to reply to the confirmatory application expired more than ten months ago. Despite a final reminder sent by the Ombudsman to the Commission in April 2026, the Commission failed to adopt a confirmatory decision by 12 May 2026 at the latest.

15. The Ombudsman regrets that her inquiry in this case has not helped the complainant in obtaining a decision from the Commission. As it would serve little purpose to keep sending more reminders to the Commission, the Ombudsman closes the case, finding maladministration.

16. The Ombudsman will not make a recommendation in this case. The Ombudsman has already urged the Commission to address the systemic delays in this area and to respect the time limits in Regulation 1049/2001.[5] The Ombudsman is aware that the issue of delay in handling public access requests persists and she is currently monitoring the matter based on complaints. 

Conclusion

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

The Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s confirmatory application in this case amounts to maladministration.

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

 

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 05/06/2026

 

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

[2] Under Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj/eng

[3] The Ombudsman decided not to open an inquiry into this aspect of the complaint.

[4] Article 8 of Regulation 1049/2001.

[5] See the Ombudsman’s Recommendation on the time the European Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents (strategic inquiry OI/2/2022/OAM), available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/recommendation/en/167661