The case concerned a request for public access to a text message sent in January 2024 by the President of the French Republic to the President of the European Commission concerning the EU-Mercosur trade negotiations.

In July 2025, the Commission replied, stating that, although such an exchange had indeed taken place, it could not locate the requested message. The Commission noted that the message had been received via the instant messaging application ‘Signal’, which had the ‘disappearing messages’ feature activated. The Commission therefore concluded that it did not hold any documents falling within the scope of the request.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s handling of the request. Her inquiry team inspected the Commission’s file on the public access request and held a meeting with representatives of the Commission.

Based on the inspection and the meeting, the Ombudsman could not exclude that the message was automatically deleted from the President’s phone after the request had been received. The inquiry also revealed that the complainant’s request remained unaddressed by the Cabinet of the Commission President for 15 months, while there was no follow-up or reminder by the Secretariat-General to monitor its processing. The Ombudsman concluded that the Commission’s handling of this request constituted maladministration.

To address this, the Ombudsman recommended that the Commission review and improve the handling of public access requests involving the Cabinet of the President or of any Commissioner and actively monitor the progress of such requests to avoid undue delays.

In addition, the Ombudsman made two suggestions for improvements. First, the Commission should adapt its internal rules to ensure that any document subject to a request for public access is preserved as soon as such request to that document is received and until any process of challenging a refusal to grant access is completed, irrespective of whether the document fulfils the Commission’s document registration criteria. Second, the Commission should duly preserve, for a reasonable period, all text and instant messages exchanged between Heads of State or Government, or ministers, and Members of the Commission, including those subject to automatic deletion after a certain time interval, given the likely significance of such messages.

 

The complainant, representing a non-governmental organisation, sought public access to documents sent and received by the European Commission on the proposed Artificial Intelligence Act. The Commission disclosed certain documents, but refused (full) access to four documents, invoking the exceptions for the protection of the public interest as regards international relations and the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue and met with relevant representatives from the Commission. During the meeting, the Commission informed the Ombudsman inquiry team that it had decided to provide broader access to the documents at issue, given the passage of time.

The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s decision to grant wider access and closed the inquiry as settled.

The case concerned the European Commission’s refusal to give public access to documents concerning the EU-US Trade and Technology Council (EU-US TTC). The complainant, a journalist, sought public access to documents to and from the Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) mentioning the EU-US TTC, as well as meetings and minutes of DG COMP representatives, including the Commissioner for Competition.

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected 50 documents identified by the Commission as falling within the scope of the request. Based on the inspection, the Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution, asking the Commission to reconsider its position with a view to giving wide public access to the documents at issue. The Commission subsequently granted full access to nine documents and wide access to 41 documents, subject to redactions for the protection of personal data only. As regards one document, the Commission maintained its position that its disclosure could undermine the public interest as regards international relations.

Whilst the Ombudsman welcomed that the Commission reconsidered its position and granted wide access, she noted that the complainant received the requested documents after having waited for one year. She therefore reminded the Commission of her previous findings, notably in her own-initiative inquiry on systemic delays by the Commission in handling public access requests, in which she made a recommendation and suggestions to the Commission on addressing these systemic delays.