- EN English
Follow-up to the suggestions in the above-mentioned inquiry on how the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission handle requests for public access to legislative documents
Correspondence - Date Monday | 18 August 2025
Case OI/4/2023/MIK - Opened on Monday | 02 October 2023 - Decision on Tuesday | 03 December 2024 - Institutions concerned European Parliament ( No further inquiries justified ) | Council of the European Union ( No further inquiries justified ) | European Commission ( No further inquiries justified ) - Country France
Inquiry opened
02/10/2023Inquiry ongoing
02/10/2023Inquiry outcome
03/12/2024
|
Secretary-General Council of the European Union |
Dear Secretary-General,
Thank you for your letter of 2 May 2025 informing me about the Council’s response to the Ombudsman’s suggestions in the above case.
It is encouraging to note that the Council has circulated the Ombudsman’s decision to all delegations and to all departments of its General Secretariat along with a reminder of the main transparency requirements in relation to legislative documents. It is also encouraging to note that the Council is preparing a revised ‘Transparency Guide’ for all matters related to access to documents. I would be grateful if you could share with my Office, for information, a copy of this guide once it is finalised.
Moreover, I welcome the Council’s commitment to provide the applicants with a more complete explanation of how the Council has analysed whether any overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested legislative documents exists.
I note with particular interest the Council’s efforts to improve its proactive transparency, in particular its decision to make further legislative documents publically available upon circulation, publishing references to ‘working papers’ (‘WK documents’) to facilitate public access, and the Council’s participation in the project on the ‘EU Law Tracker’.
I would reiterate that this inquiry found that, in cases in which public access was refused or only partial access granted, the Council did not provide sufficiently concrete arguments and evidence justifying non-disclosure of legislative documents or their parts. In this context, I encourage the Council to further reflect on the kind of arguments it advances when it refuses public access to legislative documents, taking into account the case law of the EU Courts.
Please note that I intend to monitor how the Council implements the suggestions made in the context of this inquiry based on any future complaints.
Thank you once again for your good cooperation in this case.
Yours sincerely,
Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman
Strasbourg, 18/08/2025