The case concerned a request for public access to documents related to a meeting between the European Commission and a think tank that took place in 2014. The Commission granted partial access to two documents, and refused access to a third document in full. In doing so, the Commission invoked the exception to public access which concerns the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual.

The Ombudsman inquiry team reviewed the documents at issue and confirmed that the redactions cover personal data. The Ombudsman found that it was reasonable for the Commission to consider that the complainant had failed to provide convincing arguments as to why it was necessary for him to have access to the personal data at issue. As such, the Commission was justified in refusing (full) access to the requested documents.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

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.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents to the European Commission concerning the return or removal of refugees, asylum seekers or migrants from Türkiye. In reply, the Commission identified 27 documents to which it refused access in their entirety. For six of the documents, access was denied to protect the commercial interests of the implementing partner of the related EU-funded project. For the remaining documents, the Commission invoked the protection of the public interest as regards the EU’s international relations with Türkiye.

The complainant asked the Commission to review its decision (by making a ‘confirmatory application’). As the Commission failed to reply within the applicable time-limits, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s confirmatory application. In the absence of a confirmatory decision, and in an effort to move the case forward, the Ombudsman asked to inspect the documents at issue. Based on the inspection, the Ombudsman shared her preliminary view with the Commission that the refusal to grant access to all documents in their entirety was not justified.

Almost a year after the confirmatory application was submitted, the Commission replied by reiterating that no access could be granted to any of the documents. While it no longer relied on the protection of the implementing partner’s commercial interests, it considered that access had to be denied to all of the documents to avoid putting at risk the EU’s international relations with Türkiye. 

As the Commission has now replied to the complainant’s confirmatory application, the Ombudsman closed the case. She unequivocally criticised the significant delay incurred by the Commission in replying to the complainant’s request. The Ombudsman also reiterated her doubts - as already put forward in her preliminary views - as to whether the documents contain sensitive information throughout. However, as the case concerned the Commission’s failure to reply in a timely way to the public access request, she did not pursue this.

The case concerned a request for public access to a document related to an EU-funded project in Türkiye concerning migration management. The European Commission identified one document, a financial report, which it refused to disclose on the grounds that disclosure could undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security and the EU’s international relations.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the document at issue.

Based on the inspection and considering the wide margin of discretion that EU institutions enjoy when determining whether the public interest as regards public security and international relations is at risk, the Ombudsman found that the Commission’s decision to refuse access was not manifestly wrong. Given that the public interests at stake cannot be superseded by another public interest that is deemed more important, the Ombudsman found no maladministration and closed the case.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents related to a meeting between representatives of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Governance (TBI) and two members of the cabinet of the Hungarian Commissioner on 19 June 2024. In particular, the complainant was interested in knowing whether a specific TBI representative, whom the complainant considered a public figure that previously held public office, was present at the meeting.

The Commission provided the complainant with partial access to the meeting report and an email that it had received from TBI ahead of the meeting. The Commission redacted the names of the representatives of TBI. It considered that the arguments put forward by the complainant were not such as to establish a specific need in the public interest for disclosure of this personal data (‘necessity’). Irrespective of the lack of a necessity, the Commission considered that disclosure would undermine the legitimate interests of the individuals concerned. As regards the access request related to an identified individual, the Commission replied that it could neither confirm nor deny whether the person in question had been in the meeting as this too was considered personal data.

The Ombudsman found that it was reasonable for the Commission to consider that the complainant had not put forward sufficient arguments establishing a necessity to have the personal data transferred to him for a specific purpose in the public interest. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry finding that no further inquiries are justified. The Ombudsman noted however that the Commission could have consulted with TBI on the question of disclosing the names of their representatives at the meeting, with the aim of removing any basis for public speculation, and made a corresponding suggestion.