made in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman^[1]

Background to the complaint

1. In May 2024, the ‘Critical Raw Materials Act’ (‘CRMA’)[2] entered into force. This EU Regulation aims to ensure access to a secure and sustainable supply of essential minerals and materials with high economic importance and significant supply risk that are crucial for digital, green, and defence technologies.

2. Under the CRMA, certain mining, processing and recycling projects can be recognised as a ‘Strategic Project’[3], meaning that these projects obtain a priority status that requires national authorities and courts to carry out any administrative or judicial procedure related to the permit-granting of those projects as swiftly as possible. 

3. In order to be designated as a Strategic Project, critical raw materials projects have to comply with certain criteria.[4] For example, they have to (i) make a meaningful contribution to the security of the EU’s supply of strategic raw materials, (ii) become feasible within a reasonable timeframe and (iii) be implemented sustainably, which means that project promoters have to monitor, prevent and minimise any environmental or socially adverse impact of their respective project.

4. Decisions on the designation of the status of Strategic Project are taken by the European Commission, after consulting the ‘Critical Raw Materials Board’ that consists of Member State experts.

5. In May 2024, the Commission published the first call for applications for the recognition of critical raw materials projects as Strategic Projects under the CRMA.[5] In March 2025, the Commission designated 47 projects within the EU as Strategic Projects.[6] In June 2025, the Commission designated 13 projects located in countries outside the EU as Strategic Projects, including a lithium extraction project located in the Jadar Valley in Serbia.[7]

6. In July and September 2025 respectively, the complainants made two requests[8] for public access to documents to the Commission, independently of one another, asking for access to the application of the ‘Jadar project’ to be granted the strategic status under the CRMA.

7. The Commission identified seven documents, namely the application form and six supporting documents[9] that had been submitted to it by the company (‘project promoter’) concerned. The Commission refused to give public access to the documents in their entirety, relying on the need to protect the public interest as regards defence and military matters and the financial and economic policies of the EU[10], as well as the need to protect commercial interests[11], referring to a general presumption of non-disclosure.

8. In September and November 2025 respectively, the complainants asked the Commission to review its decisions (by making ‘confirmatory applications’), questioning the sensitivity of the information contained in the documents and arguing that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

9. Specifically, the complainant in case 3164/2025/PVV(MIG) considered that, given that Strategic Projects are publicly funded, fast-tracked and granted regulatory privileges, there is a public interest in knowing how they are assessed and selected.

10. In addition, the complainant considered that the documents are likely to contain environmental information, including information on emissions, for which the public interest should be prioritised over commercial confidentiality. In this regard, the complainant also argued that, because the project had been split into several “independent units”, its overall impact was difficult to understand and might have been underrepresented in the project application. Further, the complainant contended that there had been exploration and test drills for the project that had not been in compliance with the applicable national law. Finally, the complainant stated that there was a “climate of intimidation” for persons wanting to protest lithium mining in Serbia, referring to a 2024 Commission report that had found that protesters had faced arrests, house searches, smear campaigns and strategic lawsuits against public participation (‘SLAPP’ suits).[12]

11. The complainant also argued that the Commission had not sufficiently explained the reasons for its decision to designate the project at issue as a Strategic Project under the CRMA. This, he contended, undermines access to justice, including the right of civil society organisations to challenge administrative decisions in environmental matters under the Aarhus framework.[13]

12. Similarly, the complainant in case 243/2026/NH noted that the project promoter in question has been subject to scrutiny regarding the environmental impact of various projects worldwide. He expressed concern that, in the event of an accident in the Jadar Valley, potential water contamination could affect neighbouring countries, namely Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria. He also referred to opposition from the local community to the ‘Jadar project’ and emphasised the importance of ensuring that the project’s objectives are consistent with those of the Memorandum of Understanding on a strategic partnership between the EU and Serbia on sustainable raw materials, battery value chains and electric vehicles.[14] According to the complainant, the project promoter is also an exporter of military goods from Serbia, and the use of lithium for EU military purposes would, in his view, undermine Serbia’s neutrality.

13. When they did not receive a confirmatory reply from the Commission within the prescribed time limit (which is considered an implicit negative reply[15]), the complainants turned to the Ombudsman, raising concerns about the delay incurred by the Commission in dealing with their access requests and about its refusal to disclose the documents at issue.

The inquiry

14. The Ombudsman opened two inquiries regarding the Commission’s implicit refusal to give public access under Regulation 1049/2001.

15. In the context of a strategic inquiry^[16], the Ombudsman had already found that the Commission’s systemic delays in processing public access requests amount to maladministration.^[17] Therefore, while the Ombudsman regretted the delay in the Commission’s responses to the complainants’ confirmatory applications, she did not open an inquiry into the reasons for the delay in these specific cases. However, the Ombudsman is aware that the Commission continues to incur delays in dealing with public access requests and is closely monitoring the matter based on complaints submitted to her.

16. As a first step in the inquiries, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to issue an explicit confirmatory decision in each case.

17. When the delay persisted, the Ombudsman inquiry team proceeded to inspect the documents at issue.

18. In March and April 2026 respectively, the Commission issued a confirmatory decision in each case. It maintained its position that access had to be refused to the relevant documents in their entirety, invoking the need to protect the commercial interests of the project promoter concerned, arguing that a general presumption of non-disclosure applied.

19. The Commission no longer relied on the exceptions for the protection of the public interest as regards defence and military matters, and the financial and economic policies of the EU.

20. The complainants remained dissatisfied with the access granted. The Ombudsman inquiry team therefore continued with the inspection of the documents.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

21. In its confirmatory decisions, the Commission stated that the documents form part of a successful application for the recognition of a critical raw materials project as a Strategic Project under the CRMA. It explained that, in determining whether to grant this status, it has to assess whether the project concerned meets the relevant recognition criteria, which are of a technical nature and concern, for example, the project’s ability to make a meaningful contribution to the supply of strategic raw materials in the EU, its technical feasibility, its expected production volume, and its sustainability and environmental impact. This means that project applications have to contain extensive technical information, including evidence related to the fulfilment of each recognition criterion, a timetable for the implementation of the project and a business plan evaluating the financial viability of the project.

22. In light of the above, the Commission considered that the general presumption of non-disclosure that the EU courts have recognised in relation to documents forming part of tenders (that typically include a technical, economic and financial offer) submitted in the framework of EU public procurement applies by analogy.

23. Specifically, the Commission stated that the rationale behind this general presumption is the need to preserve undistorted competition and legitimate interests of economic operators who participate in procurement procedures and that similar considerations can be applied to applications for the status of a Strategic Project. It contended that this status entails a privileged market position and that applicants must “demonstrate their specific expertise and individual attractiveness, which, in a commercial context, is competitive in nature, irrespective that the status may be awarded to an unspecified number of applicants in the framework of a single call.” The Commission also said that such applications contain information about the respective project promoter’s sector-specific expertise, business relations and innovative approach used in developing its project, and that disclosure would reveal the methodology used by the project promoter in structuring their application and any possible differentiating factors/uniqueness that could be a competitive advantage.

24. The Commission argued that such information is sensitive in nature and of significant commercial value, as it could be used by competitors to their own advantage, both as regards their commercial activities in general and in the context of an application for the status of Strategic Project under the CRMA. The Commission added that the critical raw materials market is characterised by high concentration and high volatility so that the release of any information on a project promoter’s technical expertise and business strategy may result in major harm to its commercial interests.

25. As regards the existence of an overriding public interest, the Commission rejected the argument that disclosure would ensure transparency and democratic oversight as to how Strategic Projects are assessed and selected as too general in nature.

26. Concerning environmental information, the Commission took the view that the documents do not contain any information that could reasonably be regarded as ‘information related to emissions into the environment’, given that the relevant information was not “determinate – and therefore non-hypothetical – in terms of the type, duration or volume of such potential emissions.” In particular, while, when assessing an application under the CRMA, it performs an overall assessment of whether a project would be implemented sustainably, the concrete sustainable implementation of a project depends on the assessment of its environmental impacts by the competent national authorities, as only the national permit-granting process can ensure that critical raw materials projects are safe, secure and comply with environmental requirements. Accordingly, the recognition of a project as a Strategic Project under the CRMA shall not affect the requirements applicable under EU, national or international law.[18]

27. As regards the project at issue, the Commission stated that, at the time of its application for strategic status, various environmental permits had still been pending. Therefore, none of the references to potential emissions that may be contained in the documents can be considered as ‘actual or foreseeable’. The Commission also took the view that similar considerations apply to environmental information other than information on emissions that the documents might contain. It concluded that public access to such information would not serve the purpose of supporting the allegations raised by the complainants in their confirmatory applications. Nor would that purpose prevail over the need to protect the project promoter’s commercial interests.

28. Finally, concerning the public interest in access to justice, the Commission argued that a civil society organisation’s interest in the disclosure of a document for the purpose of making a request for internal review under the Aarhus framework is a private and not a public interest. The Commission added that the time limit for making such a request (in relation to the designation of the project at issue as Strategic Project) has already expired.

29. In his comments on the Commission’s confirmatory decision on his access request, the complainant in case 3164/2025/PVV(MIG) argued that the use of a general presumption of non-disclosure is unjustified because of the different procedural context of the public procurement procedure and the procedure for recognising critical raw materials projects as Strategic Projects under the CRMA. Specifically, the complainant contended that the former entails a commercially adversarial environment, whereas the latter serves to certify that projects meet regulatory requirements, so that the risk of disclosure is fundamentally different.

30. In addition, the complainant contended that certain information in the documents is clearly not commercially sensitive, such as the project implementation schedule, general sustainability commitments, and factual descriptions of the project’s location, scope and regulatory context. This kind of information, he said, is routinely disclosed, for example, in permitting processes and environmental impact assessments.

31. The complainant also maintained that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. Noting that projects designated as a Strategic Project under the CRMA benefit from a significant economic advantage, including access to public financing, he reiterated that the public has a right to know on what basis benefits, privileges and resources are allocated. He added that the project at issue has a direct impact on local communities who have a legitimate, legally protected right to know the timeline of activities that may affect their environment, property and livelihoods. Further, the complainant argued that the project is of exceptional public controversy as it has generated litigation, protest, parliamentary scrutiny and diplomatic engagement at the highest levels, and that there is no risk of harm, given that it is currently put on hold.

32. As regards access to environmental information, the complainant considered the Commission’s reasoning to be contradictory. Specifically, noting that the recognition criteria under the CRMA explicitly include sustainability and addressing environmental impacts, he argued that, if relevant information was insufficiently conclusive to be disclosed, it must be equally insufficiently conclusive to be relied upon to confer the status as a Strategic Project. In that case, the Commission would have to explain on what evidentiary basis it granted that status. In fact, if the Commission has doubts about the accuracy or completeness of the environmental information contained in the documents, this would be cause for concern as regards the robustness of its assessment under the CRMA and thus a strong public interest in disclosure.

33. Concerning access to justice in environmental matters, the complainant stated that the documents could be relevant in relation to remedies other than a request for internal review under the Aarhus framework, including actions before national courts, proceedings under EU environmental law and challenges of decisions granting a permit. The complainant also rejected the Commission’s view that this argument illustrated a private interest, saying that access to environmental justice is recognised as a public interest.

34. The complainant in case 243/2026/NH stated that a complex mining project such as the one at issue can affect the environment, water-management, biodiversity, heritage as well as the local community. He considered that the Commission had not sufficiently taken these concerns into account when designating the project as a Strategic Project under the CRMA and reiterated that the project promoter concerned already faces scrutiny for its environmental impact in different projects around the world. Moreover, the complainant argued that disclosure of the project’s application under the CRMA would allow the public to assess the nature of the project and dispel any possible suspicions of corruption.

35. In both cases, the complainants rejected the Commission’s position that the exception applies to the entirety of the documents and that no partial access was possible.

The Ombudsman's assessment leading to a recommendation

36. Given the overlap in subject matter, the Ombudsman decided to treat these complaints jointly and issue a single recommendation.

37. EU institutions can refuse to give public access to a document requested under Regulation 1049/2001, if there is a reasonably foreseeable and non-hypothetical risk that its disclosure would undermine the commercial interests of a natural or legal person. However, EU institutions cannot rely on the need to protect commercial interests simply because information relates to a company or its business relations. The exception serves to protect commercially sensitive information, such as information relating to the business strategy or specific know-how of a company.[19] Accordingly, when invoking this exception, EU institutions have to explain how disclosure could specifically and actually undermine the legitimate commercial interests at stake.[20]

38. In this case, the Commission relied on the need to protect the commercial interests of the project promoter concerned, arguing that a general presumption of non-disclosure could be applied to the documents at issue. Where this is the case, the EU institution concerned does not have to examine the documents at issue individually nor to explain the specific harm that disclosure of their content would entail. Rather, it can presume that, because the documents are part of a particular file or category of documents, they must remain confidential in their entirety.

On the general presumption of non-disclosure

39. The Commission took the view that the general presumption that disclosure of bids of tenderers in public procurement procedures would undermine the commercial interests of the tenderers concerned, as recognised by the EU courts, could be applied, by analogy, to documents relating to the designation of critical raw materials projects as ‘Strategic Projects’ under the CRMA.

40. In essence, the Commission contended that an application for the status of Strategic Project can be deemed to contain sensitive commercial information that could be used by competitors in the context of their own project applications, thereby distorting competition in subsequent procedures and undermining the legitimate expectations of the project promoter that applied.

41. The Commission’s position is not convincing. Most notably, the public procurement procedure is of a different nature than the process for determining whether or not a critical raw materials project should be granted the status of a Strategic Project under the CRMA. The public procurement procedure is a comparative selection procedure that requires the institution concerned to compare various commercial offers from different tenderers about the same service in order to select the best one. Only the successful tenderer will be awarded a service contract. The public procurement procedure is therefore competitive in nature.

42. By contrast, the process for designating critical raw materials projects as Strategic Projects is not based on bids, costs or competition among market operators, but on public interest criteria. When assessing applications for the status of Strategic Project, the Commission has to determine whether or not the relevant project meets the statutory requirements laid down in the CRMA, exercising administrative discretion. If the Commission considers that a project meets those criteria, the project will be recognised as a Strategic Project. This decision is taken irrespective of the content of other project applications. In other words, in theory, all projects applying for the status of Strategic Project in a given call can be successful.

43. In addition, it appears unreasonable to presume that project applications like the one at issue in this case contain commercially sensitive information throughout. The documents have been provided by the project promoters concerned to illustrate whether and how their respective project meets the relevant requirements set out in the CRMA.[21] This includes, for example, how a project would be implemented sustainably, that is, how the project promoter would prevent and minimise negative impacts on the environment and on society.

44. This information will normally also be part of the mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that project promoters have to conduct in line with the national regulatory framework applicable to them, and/or Environmental and Social Impact Assessments that project promoters might carry out on a voluntary basis or in the context of meeting funding requirements. A core feature of such assessments is typically that they are meant to be made publicly available. Also, in light of the size and significant impact of critical raw materials projects, project promoters usually engage with a broad range of stakeholders, to improve public perception of and obtain support for their project, or because the applicable rules require them to do so. In this context, information, that project promoters have to provide to the Commission under the CRMA to demonstrate compliance with the requirement for meaningful engagement with the local communities involved when applying for the status of Strategic Project, becomes public.

45. Based on the inspection of documents in this and a parallel[22] inquiry, the Ombudsman is not convinced that the documents at issue contain exclusively information that would reflect the project promoter’s specific expertise, know-how or business secrets, or could be deemed sensitive for other reasons. Rather, much of the information contained therein is rather general in nature. In the application form, the project promoter describes, for example, which domestic laws apply to its project, which voluntary frameworks it adheres to and where it is in the process of obtaining the necessary permits for the implementation of its project. As regards specific measures that the project promoter envisages to mitigate the environmental and social impacts of its project, the information in the application form is often not very detailed but constitutes a summary of information that has already been lawfully made public elsewhere.

46. For example, the project promoter concerned has set up a project website on which it had published a draft environmental impact assessment for the project. While this document is no longer available on the project website, the fact that the project promoter itself published it illustrates that it did not consider its content to be commercially sensitive in nature. In addition, the document was widely commented on by civil society and academic actors and formed the basis for a scoping decision by the responsible national authorities as regards the environmental impact assessment to be carried out. Moreover, the inspection showed that at least one of the supporting documents at issue is publicly available.

47. The Ombudsman also notes that the methodology used by the project promoter in formulating and structuring its application is set out in a guidance document[23] provided by the Commission as well as in the relevant application form itself. Accordingly, the kind of information included in the application form is very similar in nature to the information included in other project promoters’ applications, and the supporting documents provided by different project promoters are of the same kind too. In addition, the structure of the “sustainability documentation” provided to the Commission follows the applicable domestic legislation and/or guidelines from the national authorities. It is therefore unlikely that, in all circumstances, their disclosure would give other project promoters an unfair advantage in terms of copying each other’s approach.

48. What is more, the project applications that the Commission reviews in relation to a given round of the call do not concern the same or even similar projects. Rather, critical raw materials projects tend to be unique due to their geographical location, the raw materials to be extracted or processed, the national regulatory framework that applies to them, the environmental factors that might be affected and the needs of the local community concerned. Accordingly, the impact that each project may have and how best it can be addressed are unique as well.

49. Finally, it should be noted that the Commission itself has made some of the information contained in similar project applications public, namely, in its reply to a ‘request for internal review’[24] by a consortium of civil society organisations that was issued prior to the adoption of the confirmatory decision in this case.[25]

50. In light of all this, the Ombudsman considers that it was unreasonable for the Commission to presume that the documents at issue would contain sensitive information throughout and, thus, that a general presumption of non-disclosure could be applied to them. Thus, the Commission should have conducted an individual assessment of the project application, with a view to granting wide partial access.

On the existence of an overriding public interest

51. Where an EU institution has established that granting public access to documents would reasonably undermine the protection of commercial interests, it must refuse access unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.[26]

52. In this regard, the complainants, including by referring to the Aarhus Regulation[27], argued that the documents are likely to contain environmental information, comprising ‘information related to emissions into the environment’[28], and that such information would have to be disclosed irrespective of its commercial sensitivity.

53. The Aarhus Regulation aims to ensure that ‘environmental information’ is progressively made available and disseminated to the public.[29] The purpose of access to this information is to promote public participation in the related decision-making process, thereby increasing accountability and contributing to public awareness of and support for the decisions taken. A public interest to access ‘environmental information’ is thus deemed to exist and the EU institutions should take this into account when assessing requests for public access.[30]

54. However, the public interest in accessing ‘environmental information’ does not automatically override the interest to be protected by non-disclosure of the requested documents. Instead, it must be assessed based on an individual examination of the documents and their context.[31] This is different where a specific kind of ‘environmental information’ is concerned, that is, information which ‘relates to emissions into the environment’. For this specific kind of environmental information, an overriding public interest is presumed to exist when it comes to the protection of commercial interests.[32]

55. The notion of ‘information related to emissions into the environment’ is not limited to information on ‘actual emissions’. It also comprises information that allows the public to know “what, it may be foreseen, will be released into the environment (...)”[33] and information relating to the effects of those emissions[34].

56. In this case, the Commission took the view in the respective confirmatory decisions that the requested documents do not contain any information that could reasonably be regarded as ‘information related to emissions into the environment’, because the environmental permits for the project were still pending at the time of its application under the CRMA. For this reason, the Commission considered that any information on emissions into the environment that might be contained in the project application must be regarded as purely hypothetical rather than actual or foreseeable.

57. The Ombudsman finds this position not convincing.

58. Under the CRMA, the Commission is not required to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact of a project applying for the status as a Strategic Project. Rather, it is for the responsible national authorities to make a full and detailed environmental assessment when projects apply for the required environmental permit. However, in order to verify whether a critical raw materials project would be implemented sustainably, the Commission has to “take into account an overall assessment of a project’s compliance with relevant Union or national law as well as relevant supplementary evidence, taking into account the location of the project”.[35] This means that project promoters have to provide the Commission with extensive environmental information so as to enable it to assess whether the environmental impacts of their project would be sufficiently monitored, prevented and minimised.

59. As the inspection showed, the documentation does indeed contain detailed information qualifying as ‘environmental information’ under the Aarhus Regulation, including information about expected future emissions of the project and the impact of those emissions on the environment. This information appears to be based on an evaluation by independent experts and laboratory testing. In addition, this information has also been submitted to public authorities in order to illustrate that the project meets the relevant statutory requirements for the status of Strategic Project and/or in the context national environmental procedures.

60. As noted above, the concept of ‘information related to emissions into the environment’ covers “information on foreseeable emissions into the environment”.[36] The Ombudsman understands that information on emissions will be deemed to be foreseeable if that information is based on a concrete assessment of objective data. In contrast, information on emissions will be deemed to be purely hypothetical if that information is not based on a concrete assessment of objective data but rather on conjecture.

61. Based on the inspection of the relevant documents, the Ombudsman considers that the information related to estimated future emissions of the project contained therein is based on a concrete assessment of objective data, and, thus, that these emissions are likely to occur based on the nature and scale of the envisaged works. While it is not impossible that the planning of the project might still change slightly (or that it might not be implemented in the end), the information on emissions that has been submitted to the Commission under the CRMA should therefore, at least, be considered “foreseeable” and thus to be covered by the concept of “information [which] relates to emissions into the environment” within the meaning of the EU Aarhus Regulation. After all, the Commission accepted it as a basis for its assessment of the sustainability of the projects concerned.

62. In addition, it is clear that the critical raw materials project at issue will have a major impact on the environment and the lives of people in extended areas of the country where it is located and, possibly, beyond. Therefore, given that the Commission has recognised the project as a Strategic Project, it should be able to explain to the public why it considered that its environmental impacts would be sufficiently monitored and addressed. That the public can scrutinise the Commission’s decision to designate a project as a Strategic Project and hold the Commission to account seems particularly pressing where a project is characterised by controversy.[37]

63. In light of all the above, the Ombudsman finds that the Commission’s refusal to grant wide public access to the documents at issue constituted maladministration. She therefore makes a corresponding recommendation below.

Recommendation

On the basis of the inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman makes the following recommendation to the Commission:

The European Commission should re-consider its position on the public access requests with a view to granting wide public access, taking into account the above observations. Where needed, the Commission should consult the project promoter concerned.

The Commission and the complainants will be informed of this recommendation. In accordance with Article 4(2) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman, the Commission shall send a detailed opinion by 5 February 2027.

Teresa Anjinho 
European Ombudsman 

Strasbourg, 05/11/2026 

 

[1] Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2021.253.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2021%3A253%3ATOC.

[2] Regulation 2024/1252 of 11 April 2024 establishing a framework for ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02024R1252-20240503.

[3] See, in particular, Articles 6(1), 7 and 10 of the CRMA.

[4] In accordance with Article 6(1) of the CRMA.

[5] Available at: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/calls-expression-interest/call-applications-strategic-projects-under-critical-raw-materials-act_en.

[6] The Commission’s decision listing all projects within the EU that were designated as Strategic Projects is available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/circabc-ewpp/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/1958718b-21e9-40f4-9c9f-42a58dc4c5a3/download.

[7] The Commission’s decision listing all projects outside the EU that were designated as Strategic Project is available at: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/808502c2-21c7-4ca8-855f-ff0b528f91c4_en?filename=C_2025_3491_1_EN_ACT_part1_v4.pdf.

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

[9] The conceptual closure plan of the project, the business plan, evidence of certification schemes, the operational planning, sustainability documentation and a technical feasibility study.

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

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

[12] The complainant referred to the Commission’s 2024 Report on Serbia: https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/3c8c2d7f-bff7-44eb-b868-414730cc5902_en?filename=Serbia%20Report%202024.pdf.

[13] Article 10 of Regulation 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (the ‘Aarhus Regulation’): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02006R1367-20230429.

[14] Memorandum of Understanding available at: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/6fe0e605-9299-45c3-b846-2efb85585251_en.

[15] In accordance with Article 8(3) of Regulation 1049/2001.

[16] Strategic inquiry OI/2/2022/OAM on the time the European Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/60766.

[17] Decision in the above strategic inquiry OI/2/2022/OAM: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/175321.

[18] In accordance with recital 25 and Article 6(3) of the CRMA.

[19] See, for example, judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018, PTC v EMA, T-718/15: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=199044&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=13039858.

[20] See, for example, judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 September 2018, ClientEarth v Commission, C‑57/16 P, paragraph 51: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=205322&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=19039430.

[21] Article 6(1) of the CRMA.

[22] Case 1855/2025/PVV(MIG) on how the European Commission handled a request for public access to documents related to projects that have been recognised as ‘Strategic Projects’ under the Critical Raw Materials Act: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/69726.

[23] The latest version of this ‘Guide for Applicants’ is available at: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-materials/areas-specific-interest/critical-raw-materials/strategic-projects-under-crma/guide-applicants_en.

[24] In accordance with Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation.

[25] See the Commission’s detailed assessment annexed to its reply dated 8 January 2026: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/3b48eff1-b955-423f-9086-0d85ad1c5879/library/74edffdc-0eb5-4658-bb6c-a5674127feb1/details.

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

[27] Regulation 1367/2006, see footnote 13 above.

[28] Article 2(1)(d) of the Aarhus Regulation.

[29] Article 1(1) of the Aarhus Regulation.

[30] See also the Ombudsman’s Decision in cases 1132/2022/OAM and 1374/2022/OAM (https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/168684), paragraph 34.

[31] See also the Ombudsman’s Decision in cases 1132/2022/OAM and 1374/2022/OAM, paragraph 35.

[32] In accordance with Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Regulation.

[33] Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018, Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH v Commission, T-643/13: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62013TJ0643.

[34] See, for example, Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2024, PAN Europe v Commission, T-104/23, paragraph 66: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62023TJ0104.

[35] In accordance with paragraph 5 of Annex III to the CRMA.

[36] See also Judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2016, European Commission v Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), Case C-673/13 P, paragraph 74: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62013CJ0673.

[37] See, for example: https://www.euronews.com/2024/08/09/we-are-not-interested-in-their-profits-farmers-protest-against-giant-lithium-mine-in-serbi; https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/serbia-wants-talks-with-rio-tinto-over-jadar-lithium-project-2024-01-17/; https://www.politico.eu/article/serbia-lithium-reserve-eu-mining-colony-electric-vehicles/.