The case concerned a request for public access to documents, submitted to the European Commission, regarding the implications of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 19 July 2024 on the EU-Israel trade agreement. The Commission identified a “note to file” (‘the note’) to which it refused access in its entirety, referring to an exception under the EU legislation on public access to documents. Specifically, the Commission argued that it could be presumed that disclosure of the note would undermine the protection of legal advice. The complainant asked the Commission to review its decision, arguing that there was an overriding public interest in disclosure. When the Commission maintained its refusal to disclose the note, adding that its disclosure would also undermine the protection of personal data, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the document at issue and met with representatives of the Commission. The Commission representatives clarified during the meeting that, while the Commission relied on a general presumption of non-disclosure that, in its view, applies to all legal advice not given as part of a legislative procedure, it had also carried out an individual assessment of the note.

The Ombudsman found that, by invoking a general presumption of non-disclosure that would apply to any legal advice, in any area of EU law as long as it does not relate to a legislative file, the Commission departed from the established case-law on the protection of legal advice and from the rationale underpinning any of the general presumptions recognised by the EU courts.

Based on the inspection of the document and the additional information provided during the meeting, the Ombudsman concluded, however, that it was reasonable for the Commission to consider, following an individual assessment of the note, that its disclosure could undermine the institution’s interest in seeking and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive legal advice. She also considered that it was reasonable for the Commission to conclude that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure of the note.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with the conclusion that no further inquiries were justified. That said, the Ombudsman regretted that a meeting had been necessary to confirm that the Commission had carried out an individual assessment of the note, and to obtain explanations as to how disclosure of the note would specifically and actually undermine the institution’s interest in seeking and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive legal advice.

The case concerned how the European Commission dealt with a request for public access to a letter from EU staff members addressed to the Commission President regarding her position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The existence of the letter had been reported in media in October 2023.

In reply to the complainant’s request, the Commission said that it did not hold any document corresponding to the description of the letter. The complainant asked the Commission to review its position (by making a confirmatory application). More than a year later, the Commission confirmed that, at the time of the initial request, it did not hold any document corresponding to the description of the letter. However, the Commission registered on its own initiative a new request for public access in relation to the letter in question. Dissatisfied with the handling of his request, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

In her preliminary views on the case, the Ombudsman considered that it was unclear from the Commission’s decision why it could not identify the requested document. The Ombudsman further noted that, even if the Commission did not hold the requested letter, it was unclear why it did not inform the complainant of this as soon as it had received the confirmatory application, and in any case within the applicable time limits. The Ombudsman took the preliminary view that how the Commission handled the complainant’s confirmatory application constituted maladministration.

In its reply to the Ombudsman, the Commission clarified that the requested letter was never received by the President’s Cabinet. Instead, the Commission had received the requested letter on 23 April 2024 as an annex to a letter addressed to the then Commissioner for Budget and Administration. As the cut-off date for identifying documents is the registration of the initial request, the requested letter did not fall under the temporal scope of the complainant’s access request. Therefore, the Commission registered a new request on its own initiative. 

The Ombudsman found several shortcomings in the way the Commission dealt with the access request. First, the Ombudsman was concerned about how the Commission had communicated with the complainant, as the complainant did not receive, for more than a year (that is, between his initial application in October 2023 and the Commission’s reply to the Ombudsman in March 2025), clear information as to why the Commission could not identify the document he had requested. Second, the Ombudsman noted that, while it is undisputed that the Commission was aware of the existence of the requested document at the time of the adoption of its final decision, it did not assess the letter with a view to its potential disclosure. Instead, it registered a new request in relation to the letter, referring to a cut-off date for identifying documents in its rules of procedure. Such formalistic approach seems difficult to reconcile with the spirit of the EU legislation on public access to documents, and it is certainly not citizen-friendly nor service-minded. Finally, the Ombudsman noted the significant delay in replying to the complainant’s confirmatory application.

Overall, the Ombudsman finds that how the Commission dealt with the complainant’s access request constituted maladministration. However, as the Commission has in the meantime adopted a new initial decision and provided full access to the requested letter, the Ombudsman sees no useful purpose in making a formal recommendation.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents held by the European Commission related to concerns about professional conduct raised by members of the International Monitoring Operation in Albania. The Commission identified one document (a letter) as falling within the scope of the request and granted partial access to it. It refused access to parts of the letter based on the need to protect privacy and the public interest as regards the EU’s international relations.

The Ombudsman inquiry team reviewed the document and confirmed that the parts withheld contain personal data and sensitive information. The Ombudsman found the Commission’s arguments justifying the redactions of personal data to be reasonable. She also found that it was not manifestly wrong for the Commission to argue that disclosure of certain sensitive parts of the letter would undermine the EU’s international relations with Albania.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.