Background to the complaint

1. In the period from January 2016 to June 2020, the European Union, under the Horizon 2020 scheme[1], funded the “MURAB project” that aimed to improve breast cancer and muscle disease diagnostic.[2] The project involved several beneficiaries from academia and industry. The total costs of the project were EUR 4.343.307,50 with an EU contribution of EUR 3.982.307,50.

2. In July 2025, the complainant, a journalist, made a request[3] for public access to documents to the European Commission, asking for documents related to the expenses by one of the universities involved in the MURAB project.

3. In September 2025, the Commission replied to the complainant. It identified ten documents to which it refused to give public access based on the need to protect the commercial interests of the university concerned.[4] The Commission also said that parts of six documents fell outside the scope of the complainant’s access request.

4. On 9 September 2025, the complainant made a ‘confirmatory application, challenging the applicability of the exception invoked by the Commission and arguing that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

5. The Commission extended the time limit for its reply to the complainant’s confirmatory application.

6. When the Commission failed to reply to the complainant within the extended time limit, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in October 2025.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s implicit refusal to give public access to the documents at issue.[5]

8. As a first step, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to adopt a confirmatory decision without undue delay and not later than 2 December 2025. The Ombudsman also informed the Commission that, should the delay persist, she would inspect the documents at issue.

9. In the absence of a confirmatory decision, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to inspect the documents at issue as well as documentation relating to the consultation of the third party concerned.

10. On 21 May 2026, the Commission adopted a confirmatory decision on the complainant’s public access request, granting wide partial access to the documents, subject only to the redaction of personal data[6] and of parts that it considered to fall outside the scope of the access request.

11. The Ombudsman asked the complainant whether he wished to make any comments on the confirmatory decision. The complainant replied that, in light of the wide access now granted, he could not understand why the Commission incurred such a significant delay.

The Ombudsman's assessment

12. This inquiry concerned the Commission’s implicit refusal to give public access to the ten documents identified by the Commission as falling within the scope of the complainant’s access request.

13. During the inquiry, the Commission adopted an explicit confirmatory decision which replaced the implicit refusal. In its confirmatory decision, the Commission granted wide partial access to the documents at issue, including to the information that it had previously considered to be commercially sensitive.

14. The complainant, in his comments on the Commission’s confirmatory decision, did not challenge the remaining redactions that are based on data protection grounds. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the complaint into the Commission’s implicit refusal has been settled by the access now granted. She welcomes the broader transparency achieved in this case.

15. That said, the Ombudsman deeply regrets the delay in handling the complainant’s access request. The time limit set by the Ombudsman to reply to his confirmatory application expired on 2 December 2025, and it still took the Commission more than five months to adopt its final position on the access request from that date. There was nothing to justify that delay. More generally, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission continues to incur delays in dealing with public access requests. She continues to closely monitor the matter based on complaints submitted to her.

Conclusions

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

By adopting an explicit confirmatory decision on the complainant’s access request, in which it granted wide partial access to the documents at issue, the European Commission has settled the complaint.

That said, the Ombudsman regrets the Commission’s delay in adopting the confirmatory decision, which persisted even after the Ombudsman had opened her inquiry.

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

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 23/06/2026

 

[1] For more information, visit: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-2020_en.

[2] For more information, visit: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/688188.

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

[4] In accordance with Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation 1049/2001.

[5] Article 8(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 lays down that “Failure by the institution to reply within the prescribed time limit shall be considered as a negative reply and entitle the applicant to institute court proceedings against the institution and/or make a complaint to the Ombudsman”.

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