The case concerned the Commission’s refusal to give public access to documents related to State aid investigations, in which persons had been recognised as an ‘interested party’ despite being neither a beneficiary of the aid nor a competitor. In refusing access, the Commission relied on a general presumption of non-disclosure, arguing that the release of any document would undermine the purpose of its investigations and the commercial interests of the companies concerned. The complainant contested the Commission’s position. Specifically, he contended that there would be an overriding public interest in disclosure, that is, the need to scrutinise the Commission’s practice of admitting complainants as ‘interested parties’. In particular, the complaint raised concerns that the Commission might interpret this notion too narrowly, thereby recognising only beneficiaries or competitors as ‘interested parties’ entitled to lodge a complaint.

Based on her inquiry, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant sought statistical information about the Commission’s practice rather than access to specific documents. In light of this, the Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution, inviting the Commission to deal with the complainant’s request as a request for information and to provide him with relevant information about its State aid procedure that would address the concerns that he had raised.

The Commission accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal for a solution and provided the complainant with detailed information on its practice related to the investigation of potentially unlawful State aid, including information on sample cases. The complainant was satisfied with this reply. The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s positive response to her proposal for a solution and closed the inquiry.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents related to coffee development programmes in Ethiopia. The complainant submitted his request to the Commission in August 2024.

The Commission first replied in December 2024. It granted full access to two documents, refused access to three documents in their entirety and gave partial access to the remaining 31 documents. In doing so, the Commission argued that (full) disclosure could undermine the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, the protection of personal data and commercial interests, as well as the protection of the public interest as regards international relations.

The complainant contested the Commission's decision by making a 'confirmatory application' in January 2025. In the absence of a reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in May 2025.

In June 2025, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked the Commission to reply to the complainant as soon as possible.

Following several exchanges with the Commission on the matter, on 20 April 2026, the Ombudsman sent a final reminder to the Commission, urging it to adopt a confirmatory decision by 12 May 2026 at the latest. The Commission failed to do so.

Since the Commission had still not replied to the complainant’s confirmatory application more than 15 months after the statutory timeline established by Regulation 1049/2001 has expired, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of maladministration.

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 case concerned the European Central Bank’s (ECB) refusal to give public access to documents containing advice relating to its gender policy and related measures. The ECB considered that disclosure would undermine the protection of legal advice and its internal decision-making. The complainant argued that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure, namely in understanding the legal reasoning underpinning the ECB’s gender policy and related measures.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue. Based on this, the Ombudsman found that the content of the documents could reasonably be regarded as legal advice and that it had been reasonable for the ECB to consider that disclosure of the documents would have undermined the protection afforded to legal advice. In addition, the Ombudsman found it reasonable for the ECB to consider that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure.

The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

The case concerned a request for public access to the risk assessment report for 2023 of a large social media platform on its compliance with the provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA). The Commission refused access to the report, referring to exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents (Regulation 1049/2001). It considered that there was a general presumption that disclosure of the report would undermine the commercial interests of the platform as well as its ongoing investigation into the platform's compliance with its obligations under the DSA. Consequently, the Commission did not conduct an individual assessment of the report to determine its possible disclosure.

The Ombudsman found that it was unreasonable to apply a general presumption of non-disclosure to a risk assessment report prepared in the framework of the DSA. The Ombudsman considered that the circumstances in which the EU courts have recognised the possibility to use a general presumption are very different from the rules that apply to risk assessment reports. In view of this, the Ombudsman’s preliminary view was that the Commission’s reliance on a general presumption constituted maladministration.

When the Commission maintained its position, the Ombudsman confirmed her view that the reliance on a general presumption of non-disclosure constituted maladministration. She recommended that the Commission conduct an individual assessment of the risk assessment report at issue with a view to granting the widest access possible, in line with Regulation 1049/2001.

The Commission did not accept the Ombudsman’s recommendation and reiterated its position that it can generally be presumed that disclosure of the risk assessment report would undermine the protection of the purpose of its DSA investigation and the commercial interests of the platform concerned. It also took the view that it could not possibly assess whether the report contains any commercially sensitive information and that the interest pursued by the complainant was of a private nature.

The Ombudsman regretted the Commission’s reply. She remained unconvinced that a general presumption of non-disclosure could be applied to risk assessment reports drawn up under the DSA, including after a redacted version of the report has been made public by the platform concerned. The Ombudsman also considered that being able to scrutinise the compliance of a very large online platform with its obligations under the DSA constitutes a public interest in disclosure that the Commission should have balanced against the interests it sought to protect. Finally, the Ombudsman noted that assessing commercially sensitive information is part of the EU institutions’ obligations under Regulation 1049/2001.

Therefore, the Ombudsman closed the case confirming her finding of maladministration.

The case concerned a request for public access to documents related to the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes between the EU Member States and non-EU countries. The Council provided links to ten documents already in the public domain and granted full access to four further documents. In addition, it refused to give public access to ten documents, in full or in part, relying on the need to protect the public interest as regards international relations and the EU Member States’ financial policy. The Council also considered that disclosure would undermine its decision-making. The complainants challenged the use of those exceptions and argued that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

Based on the inquiry and the inspection of the documents at issue by her inquiry team, the Ombudsman found that it had not been manifestly wrong for the Council to consider that disclosure of the (redacted parts of) the documents at issue would undermine the Member States’ international relations and/or their financial policy.

Given that those protected public interests cannot be set aside by another public interest that is deemed more important, it was not necessary to consider the Council’s application of the decision-making process exception. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.