Background to the complaint

1. One of the tasks of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is to conduct independent administrative investigations into serious misconduct by staff and members of the EU institutions. Following its investigations, OLAF can make recommendations for actions to be taken by the EU institution concerned, including ‘disciplinary recommendations’ aimed to sanction any wrongdoing by staff and members of EU institutions.[1] Through its annual report, OLAF informs the public about the number of disciplinary recommendations it made to the EU institutions concerned in a given period and whether the institutions followed-up on these.[2]

2. The complainant, a journalist, sought to know more about OLAF’s findings and the EU institutions’ follow-up decisions in the period from 2015 to 2023. To this end, he made several requests[3] for public access to documents to relevant EU institutions, including, in June 2024, to the European Parliament, asking for

1. “Copies, in each case, of the final written reports and recommendations sent by OLAF to your institution, and any relevant related documents accompanying those reports.”

2. “Copies of the final reports issued by your institutions concerning each of the disciplinary proceedings, captured above”.

3. Within the relevant period, OLAF had conducted 28 investigations concerning Parliament.

4. In September 2024, Parliament took the view that assessing and redacting the requested documents would entail an excessive administrative burden and proposed to the complainant, as a fair solution[4] under the EU legislation on public access to documents (Regulation 1049/2001), to reduce the scope of his access request to a specific year. The complainant agreed to confine the scope of his request to the year 2015 only. Parliament’s handling of this access request formed the subject of an earlier Ombudsman inquiry (2341/2024/PVV).[5] 

5. The complainant made a new request for public access to Parliament in October 2024. More specifically, he requested access to all final reports and related recommendations sent to Parliament by OLAF in 2016.

6. Parliament sent its reply in December 2024. It identified the final reports and (disciplinary, financial and administrative) recommendations in relation to two OLAF cases (OF/2014/0096/A1 and OF/2015/0449/A1) and refused access to these documents in their entirety.

7. In January 2025, the complainant asked Parliament to review its position (by making a ‘confirmatory application’[6]). He argued that transparency on potential ethical and financial misconduct is needed to ensure accountability within EU institutions and public trust in EU governance. As OLAF reports provide insight into how alleged breaches are assessed and addressed, disclosure would foster informed public discourse regarding the misuse of public funds. The complainant considered that disclosure would not undermine the investigatory process (particularly if follow-up procedures are concluded) and that targeted redactions could be made to protect individual privacy as he “does not seek to unnecessarily identify individuals but rather to illuminate systemic issues in handling and responding to breaches”.

8. In its confirmatory decision of March 2025, Parliament confirmed its refusal. In doing so, Parliament invoked several exceptions under Regulation 1049/2001. It argued that the complainant did not put forward a necessity for a specific purpose in the public interest to disclose the personal data[7] contained in the requested documents. In addition, Parliament noted that a follow-up judicial procedure by the competent national authorities is currently ongoing for case OF/2014/0096/A1. According to Parliament, the documents related to this case are thus covered by a general presumption of non-disclosure[8] to protect the purpose of the ongoing follow-up procedure as well as by the exception pertaining to the protection of court proceedings[9].

9. For the documents related to case OF/2015/0449/A1, Parliament considered that no access should be given to protect OLAF’s investigative methods and strategies, on the one hand, and Parliament’s ability to carry out effective disciplinary procedures in complete impartiality,[10] on the other. Parliament concluded that no overriding public interest in disclosure had been demonstrated and that no partial access could be granted.

10. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The inquiry

11. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into Parliament’s decision to refuse access to the requested documents under Regulation 1049/2001.

12. During the inquiry, the Ombudsman received Parliament’s confidential additional views on the complaint. The Ombudsman inquiry team also inspected the documents at issue and met with representatives of Parliament.

13. The complainant provided comments on the report on the meeting.

Arguments presented

14. Parliament stated that all requested documents contain information concerning identified natural persons who were subject to or were otherwise involved in an OLAF investigation. According to Parliament, such information constitutes personal data and the complainant’s arguments are too general to establish a necessity to transfer these data for a specific purpose in the public interest. More specifically, the attainment of his objectives would not require disclosure of personal data. Parliament added that redacting only the names of the individuals concerned would not suffice as disclosure of other information, such as the description of facts and assessment of these facts, would also make them identifiable.

15. For Parliament, disciplinary proceedings concern the relationship between the institution and its staff, and the confidentiality of this relationship is paramount to ensure the effectiveness of the EU Staff Regulations[11] which lay down that a staff member can request a deletion from their personal file of a mention of a disciplinary penalty.

16. For the documents related to case OF/2014/0096/A1, Parliament informed the complainant that a follow-up judicial procedure by the competent national authorities is ongoing. Accordingly, a general presumption of non-disclosure[12] applies to these documents and Parliament considered, as a matter of principle, that their disclosure would “undermine the purpose of the related OLAF investigations, as it could compromise the effective use of the investigation file by the competent authorities and consequently the effective administration of justice”.

17. In addition, Parliament carried out an individual assessment of the documents in question and concluded that their disclosure would also seriously compromise the sound administration of justice and the integrity of the court proceedings concerned[13]. Therefore, Parliament contended that both the general presumption of non-disclosure and the exception for the protection of court proceedings apply to these documents in their entirety. 

18. For the documents related to case OF/2015/0449/A1, Parliament stated that they contain “details about the investigative strategy and methods employed by OLAF in the course of its investigations, opinions on legal issues, information on operational activities, and assessments of the possibility of following up on their results”. Therefore, disclosure would undermine OLAF’s investigative methods and strategies and thus its ability to protect the EU’s financial interests.

19. Parliament also relied on the exception for the protection of its decision-making process to refuse access to these documents. It stated that disciplinary proceedings are subject to strict confidentiality rules and safeguards for the right of defence and other fundamental rights and freedoms of the persons concerned. OLAF recommendations are the basis of such disciplinary proceedings and constitute, therefore, opinions for internal use as part of preliminary deliberations under Article 4(3), second subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001. According to Parliament, the confidentiality of disciplinary proceedings should be extended to such preparatory documents with a view to protecting the honour and reputation of the staff member concerned.

20. Furthermore, Parliament argued that disclosure of the requested documents would lead to external pressure, undermining Parliament’s ability to carry out disciplinary proceedings in complete impartiality. In turn, “Parliament's ability to take the relevant decisions in its best interest as an employer and in the public's best interest” would also be undermined. Parliament concluded that it could not grant partial access because redacting the information covered by these exceptions would not leave any substantive content[14].

21. Finally, Parliament argued that there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of the documents at issue. It stated that “the objective of enhanced public scrutiny cannot outweigh the need to ensure effective OLAF investigations and more in general a successful Union wide anti-fraud policy. Nor can such an interest outweigh the necessity of ensuring the sound administration of justice or effective disciplinary procedures in compliance with the applicable safeguards”.

22. The complainant considered that Parliament excessively applied the personal data exception. He stated that he is not seeking to identify individuals but that redactions should allow for partial access as exceptions to transparency must be narrowly applied. He noted that “where misconduct has been established, privacy concerns of officials must give way to the public’s right to know”. More specifically, he argued that potential misuse of EU funds and breaches of ethical standards are matters of significant public concern and that refusal to disclose perpetuates institutional opacity and erodes public trust. According to the complainant, a key aspect in this regard is that higher accountability standards should apply for public officials of Parliament and elected Members of Parliament.

23. For the documents related to case OF/2014/0096/A1, the complainant contested Parliament’s reliance on the general presumption of non-disclosure and the court proceedings exception. He found that Parliament had not sufficiently substantiated how the ongoing judicial proceedings would be prejudiced since the report dates back to 2016 and the judicial authorities have in any event access to the relevant documents.

24. For the documents related to case OF/2015/0449/A1, the complainant noted that the investigation has been concluded and Parliament has taken follow-up measures. Therefore, the principle of transparency should be upheld and (partial) access should be given for the public to scrutinise how serious misconduct within EU institutions is investigated and addressed.

25. Finally, the complainant took issue with Parliament’s failure to offer meaningful partial access. He mentioned that several other EU institutions granted partial access to similar documents and said that he expected Parliament to be most transparent in view of its unique role and the fact that some of the issues may concern Members of Parliament or their staff.

The Ombudsman's assessment

Documents related to case OF/2015/0449/A1

26. The concept of ‘personal data’[15] is very broad.[16] 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. According to EU case-law[17], “[t]he use by the EU legislature of the word ‘indirectly’ suggests that, in order to treat information as personal data, it is not necessary that that information alone allows the [individual concerned] to be identified.” Rather, it is sufficient if that information, in combination with other information from the same or from different sources, allows for the identification of the individual in question. In addition, it is not necessary that the public at large can deduce the individual’s identity on that basis. It is enough if one person, for example, someone working in the same field as the individual in question and familiar with their professional background, can identify them[18].

27. An assessment of whether information related to an OLAF investigation into staff misconduct constitutes personal data is thus a delicate task which depends on the specific circumstances of each case.

28. Parliament argued that the final report and disciplinary recommendation regarding case OF/2015/0449/A1 contain personal data of the person concerned by the investigation. In addition, as the Parliament representatives clarified during the meeting with the Ombudsman inquiry team, Parliament considered the administrative recommendation for this case to be covered by the exception for the protection of personal data in its entirety. According to Parliament, “even though this administrative recommendation has broader implications than the disciplinary recommendation, any disclosure would risk making the person concerned identifiable by third parties from a specific professional background or who are otherwise familiar with the specific facts of the case”.

29. The inspection of the documents at issue confirmed that the circumstances of case OF/2015/0449/A1 are so specific that even minimal partial disclosure of the final report and recommendations would risk making the person concerned identifiable^[19].

30. Any disclosure of personal data must fulfil the three conditions for transfer of personal data set out in Regulation 2018/1725[20]. First, EU institutions must assess whether the applicant established a specific need for disclosure in the public interest (‘necessity’). Second, if such ‘necessity’ exists, they must assess whether disclosure might undermine the legitimate interests of the individual(s) concerned. Third, if this is the case, they must establish that, in light of the objective pursued by the applicant, disclosure would be proportionate nevertheless. As regards the need for disclosure (first condition), the complainant argued that the public’s right to be informed outweighs the right to privacy of the persons concerned by OLAF investigations, especially when it comes to public officials of Parliament and elected Members of Parliament.

31. At the same time, in his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant indicated that he is not seeking to identify individuals. It is thus not clear whether the complainant is seeking access to the personal data contained in the documents. In any event, whilst the Ombudsman considers that the objective pursued by the complainant is legitimate, the arguments invoked are too general to constitute a necessity for a specific purpose in the public interest. Given that the complainant did thus not establish a necessity for disclosure of the personal data at issue, the assessment of the other two conditions for transfer of personal data is not necessary.

32. In view of this, the Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable for Parliament to consider that the requested documents related to case OF/2015/0449/A1 contain a considerable amount of personal data and that redacting them would not leave any substantive content.

Documents related to case OF/2014/0096/A1

33. Access to documents held by an EU institution can be denied only if, after an individual assessment of the content of those documents, the EU institution concerned comes to the conclusion that disclosure of the documents, or parts thereof, would undermine one or more of the interests protected under Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001.

34. However, for certain categories of documents, the EU courts have recognised that EU institutions may refuse to give public access based on a ‘general presumption’ of non-disclosure. This means that the EU institution concerned does not have to examine the documents in question individually, that is, it does not have to assess how their disclosure would specifically and actually undermine any of the protected interests. Rather, the EU institution may assume that, because the documents fall within a certain category, disclosure would undermine the relevant protected interests.[21]

35. To justify its refusal to give public access to the documents related to case OF/2014/0096/A1, Parliament relied on such a general presumption of non-disclosure. More specifically, Parliament considered that the documents’ disclosure would undermine the purpose of the related OLAF investigations since it could affect the effective use of the investigation file by the authorities dealing with the follow-up. 

36. According to EU case-law[22], the application of the exception for the protection of the purpose of investigations and the related presumption of non-disclosure are limited in time. This means that, to refuse access, EU institutions can rely on it only while the relevant investigations are ongoing and for as long as a reasonable time for follow-up activities by authorities implementing OLAF’s recommendations has not elapsed.

37. The inspection of the requested documents and Parliament’s confidential explanations confirmed that the follow-up is still ongoing. While this follow-up has been ongoing for a considerable amount of time, there is nothing to suggest in this specific case that a reasonable period, within which the follow-up should normally be completed, has elapsed.

38. A general presumption is always subject to a rebuttal or to demonstrating that there is an overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the document concerned.[23]  In the latter case, EU case-law[24] provides that an applicant for public access puts forward specific circumstances to justify disclosure, and that purely general considerations do not suffice. More specifically, an applicant is required to show that “the principle of transparency was in some sense especially pressing and capable, therefore, of prevailing over the reasons justifying the refusal to disclose”[25].

39. The complainant in this case argued that disclosure of the documents at issue would enhance accountability and trust in EU governance while fostering informed public discourse regarding the misuse of public funds. Since the documents at issue relate to public officials of Parliament and elected Members of Parliament, they considered that higher accountability standards should apply. 

40. While the Ombudsman considers that the objective pursued by the complainant is legitimate, the complainant’s arguments remain general and are not such as to rebut the general presumption of non-disclosure or to establish that there is a public interest that overrides the interest in protecting the ongoing follow-up.

41. In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable for Parliament to apply a general presumption of non-disclosure to the documents related to case OF/2014/0096/A1.

42. In any case, the Ombudsman notes that Parliament also carried out an individual assessment of the requested documents in view of the ongoing court proceedings. In addition, similarly to the documents related to case OF/2015/0449/A1, the documents related to this case contain personal data throughout, rendering it difficult for Parliament to provide partial access.

43. Based on her inquiry, the Ombudsman concludes that it was reasonable for Parliament to refuse access to the requested documents in their entirety. She finds that the documents related to case OF/2014/0096/A1 are covered by a general presumption of non-disclosure, and that the documents related to both cases are covered by the exception for the protection of personal data.

44. Therefore, there was no need for the Ombudsman to examine Parliament’s application of the other exceptions to public access.[26]

Conclusion

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

There was no maladministration by the European Parliament when it refused public access to the requested documents in this case.

The complainant and the European Parliament will be informed of this decision.

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 03/07/2026

 

[1] For more information, visit: https://anti-fraud.ec.europa.eu/about-us/what-we-do_en or https://anti-fraud.ec.europa.eu/investigations/internal-administrative-investigations_en.

[2] See, for example, the OLAF report 2021, page 52: https://anti-fraud.ec.europa.eu/document/download/8d92a187-fae8-449f-8600-e84af9b2dabf_en?filename=olaf-report-2021_en.pdf.

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

[5] The refusal by the European Parliament to give public access to documents related to an investigation into staff misconduct concluded in 2015 by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF): https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/67852.

[6] Article 8 of Regulation 1049/2001.

[7] Protected under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001.

[8] Article 4(2), third indent of Regulation 1049/2001; Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021, Homoki v Commission, T-517/19, paragraphs 57 and 60: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-517/19.

[9] Article 4(2), second indent of Regulation 1049/2001.

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

[11] In accordance with Article 27 of Annex IX of the EU Staff Regulations, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01962R0031-20260101.

[12] Homoki v Commission, paragraphs 57 and 60.

[13] Judgment of the Court of 18 July 2017, Commission v Breyer, C-213/15 P, paragraph 41: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62015CJ0213; Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, Philip Morris v Commission, T-18/15, paragraph 52: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62015TJ0018; Judgment of the General Court of 6 February

2020, Compañía de Tranvías de la Coruña, SA v Commission, T-485/18, paragraph 41: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62018TJ0485.

[14] Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018, Psara et al v Parliament, T-639/15 to T-666/15 and T-94/16, paragraph 126: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62015TJ0639.  

[15] 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: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/oj/eng.

[16] See also Decision on how the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) dealt with a request for public access to final reports and recommendations related to investigations into misconduct by EU staff that were closed in 2023 (case 2773/2025/MIG), available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/217289 and Decision on the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) refusal to give public access to a decision on a complaint by a staff member under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations (case 3244/2025/SF), available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/222250.

[17] Judgment of the Court of 7 March 2024, OC v Commission, C-479/22 P, paragraphs 46 and following: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=283526&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=26709.

[18] Ibid, paragraph 60.

[19] Given that the complainant’s arguments in the confirmatory application were based on the misconduct committed by the persons concerned, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant did not challenge the redaction of personal data of individuals other than the persons concerned.

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

[21] See also Decision on the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s (Frontex) refusal to give public access to documents related to its follow-up to investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into staff misconduct (case 1817/2024/MIG), available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/205970.

[22] Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016, IMG v Commission, T-110/15, paragraphs 33 and 35: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62015TJ0110 and Homoki v Commission, T-517/19, paragraphs 61-63. 

[23] Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 May 2017, Sweden and Spirlea v Commission, C-562/14 P, paragraph 46: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62014CJ0562.

[24] Sweden and Spirlea v Commission, paragraph 56. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November 2013, LPN and Finland v Commission, C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P, paragraphs 93-94: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0514.

[25] LPN and Finland v Commission, paragraph 93.

[26] In relation to the protection of Parliament’s decision-making process, the Ombudsman has already held in the context of case 2341/2024/PVV that she is not convinced that disclosure of documents similar to those at issue would seriously undermine Parliament’s decision-making as regards future disciplinary proceedings. Indeed, she considers that the risk of external pressure seems rather hypothetical, certainly in light of the passage of time between the access request and the facts at issue.