Location: European Ombudsman’s office, Brussels

Present:

European Commission:

• Director-General, Legal Service
• Assistant to the Director-General, Legal Service
• Coordinator for inter-institutional Relations, Transparency and Ethics (SG.A.3), Secretariat-General
• Legal and Policy Officer, Document Management & Access to Documents (SG.A.2), Secretariat-General

European Ombudsman:

• Lampros Papadias, Head of Cabinet
• Rosita Hickey, Director of Inquiries
• Tanja Ehnert, Inquiries Coordinator
• Diana Riochet, Legal Adviser in the Cabinet
• Michaela Gehring, Inquiries Officer
• Nicholas Hernanz, Inquiries Officer

Purpose of the meeting

The purpose of the meeting was for the Ombudsman inquiry team to discuss the case and clarify the concrete timeline of the Commission’s handling of the public access request.

Prior to the meeting, the Commission provided the Ombudsman inquiry team with 17 documents related to its handling of the complainant’s access request, both at the initial and the confirmatory stages, and to its policy on the use of corporate mobile phones/devices.

Introduction and procedural information

The Ombudsman inquiry team introduced themselves, thanked the Commission representatives for meeting with them and set out the purpose of the meeting. They outlined the legal framework that applies to meetings held by the Ombudsman, in particular, that the Ombudsman would not disclose any information identified by the Commission as confidential, neither to the complainant nor to any other person outside the Ombudsman’s Office, without the Commission’s prior consent.^[1]

The inquiry team explained that they would draw up a draft report on the meeting to be sent to the Commission to ensure that the contents were factually accurate and complete. The meeting report would then be finalised, included in the file and provided to the complainant. No confidential information would be included in the report or otherwise provided to the complainant or any third party.

Information exchanged

Introduction by the Commission

The Commission representatives set out the following facts of the case. On 31 January 2024, the complainant made a request for public access, under the rules set out in Regulation 1049/2001[2], to a text message sent by the President of the French Republic to the President of the European Commission concerning the EU-Mercosur trade negotiations. In the absence of an initial decision, the complainant submitted a confirmatory application on 14 May 2025, 15 months later. The Commission adopted a confirmatory decision on the complainant’s access request on 28 July 2025, stating that it had carried out an exhaustive search but could not identify the text message at issue.

The Commission representatives provided the Ombudsman inquiry team with some background information on how the Commission deals with public access requests to text messages or instant messaging applications. They noted that the Commission employs more than 30,000 staff who regularly use instant messages for work. Because of the high number of messages exchanged, the Commission takes into account three key elements as regards the registration of text messages in its document management system:

• Transparency obligations;
• Reality of modern communications (speed of instant messaging applications); and
• Security concerns (the Commission mentioned the risk of cyber-attacks involving, in particular, high profile targets).

The Commission representatives noted that security concerns about instant messaging apps led other institutions to instruct their staff members not to use instant messaging at all.[3]

The Commission has put in place very strict security requirements for the use of corporate devices, including that staff activate the “disappearing messages” feature on the Signal app in order to minimise risks.

They recalled, as already set out in the confirmatory decision, the rules that all staff members must respect:

• Article 5(4) of the Annex to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, which says: “Text messaging applications on corporate mobile phones shall not be used for important information that is not short-lived, unless where this is strictly required in the interest of the service. Text messaging applications shall comply with the Commission’s information technology security recommendations for the automatic disappearance of messages.”
• The Commission guidelines for acceptable use of public instant messaging applications, dated 1 September 2019.
• The Check list to make your Signal safer, dated 8 July 2022, in which the relevant Commission services recommend activating the “disappearing messages” feature of Signal.

The Commission representatives noted that the Annex to the Rules of Procedure, listed above, is currently being challenged before the General Court.[4] They considered that the Ombudsman inquiry in this case essentially aims to assess the “disappearing messages” feature that is challenged before the court. They invited the Ombudsman to assess whether the inquiry should be closed in these circumstances, in line with Article 2(9) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, in order not to interfere with the judicial proceedings.

They further stated that, in the meantime, in accordance with Article 278 TFEU, the Annex to the Rules of Procedure, remains fully applicable. They contended that the Commission cannot be accused of maladministration if it follows the rules in place.

Questions by the Ombudsman inquiry team

The Ombudsman inquiry team noted that, according to the Commission’s confirmatory decision, the text message at issue was received by the Commission President on 28 or 29 January 2024 and, in all likelihood, the disappearing messages feature applied to it shortly thereafter. The inquiry team asked the Commission representatives about the time interval in the settings related to “disappearing messages” on the Signal app on the President’s phone.

The Commission representatives said that the time interval could not be disclosed for security reasons, and therefore, it was not possible to estimate how much time had passed before the disappearing messages feature applied. In addition, they pointed to the fact that the Signal app allows users, in the settings, to set any time interval between one second and four weeks. The “disappearing messages” can be set up for all new chats or in each chat with a specific recipient or group. It can also be applied to existing chats. The “disappearing messages” features can be set by both sides of the chat, applying to all messages exchanged. In other words: even where on the Commission side, the time period is set to four weeks, the other side of the chat can choose a shorter time period.

The inquiry team noted that the documents sent for inspection prior to the meeting showed that the complainant’s request for public access was registered by the Commission’s Secretariat-General on 31 January 2024 and then forwarded to the Cabinet of the President of the Commission on 2 February 2024. The inquiry team asked if the Cabinet replied to that message.

The Commission representatives clarified that the access request was forwarded to the ‘Archives’ team in the Cabinet, a team responsible for handling a large amount of requests and correspondence not only pertaining to public access. They explained that some time usually can elapse before an access request is forwarded and processed. They recalled the very high volume of correspondence addressed on a daily basis to the President and her Cabinet.

The inquiry team noted that, from the inspection of the documents, it appeared that the request from the Commission’s Secretariat-General dated 2 February 2024 was left unanswered. The Secretariat-General, on 20 February 2024, extended the time limit for adopting a decision on the access request[5]. The Commission recalled that its failure to reply within the prescribed time-limit under Article 7(4)of Regulation 1049/2001 entitled the complainant to make a confirmatory application. He chose not to do so, leaving the request dormant for 15 months, until he submitted his confirmatory application in May 2025.

The Commission representatives confirmed the timeline. They explained that the provisions of Regulation 1049/2001 protect the applicant’s rights when there is no reply from the institutions within the prescribed timelines, because the applicant can immediately submit a confirmatory application. Furthermore, the Commission recalled that, contrary to the general principles of administrative law in Member States, under Regulation 1049/2001, dormant requests can be reactivated without any time limit, even years after the initial request.

The inquiry team noted that the inspected documents appear to show that there were no written exchanges between the Cabinet and the Secretariat-General in summer 2025, when the draft confirmatory decision was being prepared.

The Commission representatives explained that the exchanges took place orally. The Secretariat-General was, at the time, preparing three separate confirmatory decisions on the matter (including the one at issue in this case) and received oral feedback from the Cabinet on the content of these decisions.

As set out in the confirmatory decision, the head of cabinet of the President of the Commission recalled that the President of the Commission received a message via the text messaging application ‘Signal’ from the French President on 28 or 29 January 2024. The President of the Commission and her head of cabinet discussed this message shortly after it had been received. They considered that this message reiterated a well-established position already communicated by France to the Commission in the past in Council formations and was also publicly well-known.[6]

The Commission representatives assured the inquiry team that, in practice, text messages with important content or subject-matter that would require follow-up by the Commission are transmitted to the relevant services for registration and further processing. For example, a text message from a Head of State to the President of the Commission about certain policy concerns in a Member State would be registered and its political content would be forwarded for further processing to the competent Directorate-General, if such a follow up was needed.

The inquiry team and the Commission representatives then engaged in a discussion on the right balance between transparency and security. The Commission stressed that the Check list to make your Signal safer was adopted in response to the identification of concrete security risks in case of a cyberattack against mobile phones, in order to ensure that any such attack could only obtain a very limited amount of messages. The inquiry team emphasised that “disappearing” messages should be kept as soon as a request for public access to those messages is received by the official in question, so as to ensure that the European Ombudsman and the Court can carry out their oversight role. This would require a review of the rules in place and the Commission should consider this.

Documents inspected

Prior to the meeting:

• 15 documents (e-mails and attachments) showing the steps taken by the Commission for handling the complainant’s access request, from the receipt of the initial access request on 31 January 2024 to the transmission of the confirmatory decision and annexes to the complainant on 27 July 2025.
• 1 document called “Guidelines on document registration of 16 November 2018” (Ref. Ares(2018)5874624 - 16/11/2018).
• 1 document related to ongoing court proceedings in case T-641/25 Client Earth v Commission.

During the meeting:

The Commission representatives explained to the Ombudsman inquiry team the main arguments raised in the ongoing court proceedings in cases T-146/25 De Capitani and Others v Commission and T-641/25 Client Earth v Commission.

The Commission requested confidential treatment of all documents listed above.

Conclusion of the meeting

The inquiry team thanked the Commission’s representatives for their time and for the explanations provided, and the meeting ended.

Brussels, 19/12/2025

 

Rosita Hickey                                                                   Nicholas Hernanz

Director of Inquiries                                                            Inquiries Officer

 

[1] Article 4.8 of the European Ombudsman’s Implementing Provisions.

[2] Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj/eng

[3] [footnote added by the Commission after the meeting:] See, for the Council of the European Union, Reply from the Council of the European Union to the Ombudsman's Strategic Initiative on the recording of text and instant messages (SI/4/2021/MIG), Annex V, Note of the Director-General in charge of Digital Service, instructing the staff of the Council that commercial text messaging apps are to be used only for “short-lived, ephemeral chats of about public or non sensitive topics” and “are not to be used for sharing substantive content on sensitive matters”.

[4] Cases T-146/25 De Capitani and Others v Commission, and T-641/25 Client Earth v Commission. The Commission representatives shared confidential documents linked to the court proceedings at the end of the meeting.

[5] In accordance with Article 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.

[6] The Commission representatives referred to a press statement that the French government had issued following an extraordinary meeting of the European Council on 1 February 2024: https://www.vie-publique.fr/discours/292886-emmanuel-macron-01022024-union-europeenne.