The case concerned the refusal of the European Investment Bank (EIB) to give full public access to documents in relation to investigations and recommendations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The EIB identified numerous documents as falling within the scope of the complainant’s request, including OLAF final reports and recommendations, as well as the EIB’s own disciplinary decisions. While the EIB gave partial access to ten of the 13 identified final OLAF reports, it refused access to the remaining documents in their entirety. Concerning the EIB’s disciplinary decisions the EIB provided a summary of the disciplinary follow-up actions taken. In doing so, the EIB relied on exceptions to public access in its transparency rules, arguing that full disclosure would undermine the protection of personal data, the purpose of investigations and its decision-making process.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry, and her inquiry team inspected the documents at issue in the complainant’s public access request. The inspection showed that a significant amount of the information contained in those documents constituted personal data, which, if disclosed, could make the individual EIB staff members investigated by OLAF identifiable. Given the delicate balancing exercise required to determine whether disclosure could lead to the identification of individuals and considering that the EIB had provided the complainant with an overview of the follow-up actions taken and the sanctions imposed, the Ombudsman considered that the EIB’s refusal to give full public access was overall reasonable. She therefore closed the case finding no maladministration. That said, while a significant amount of the information contained in the withheld documents clearly constitutes personal data, the Ombudsman noted that an amount of the information, even if limited, was administrative in nature and did not constitute personal data. She thus made a suggestion for improvement that the EIB consider whether at least some parts of its disciplinary decisions containing purely administrative information could be disclosed without risking the disclosure of personal data.

The case concerned a request for public access to a document related to the European Commission’s decision to designate a mineral extraction project located in Serbia as a ‘Strategic Project’ under the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA). Specifically, the complainant sought access to the relevant approval of this decision by the non-EU country concerned. The complainant had submitted his request to the European Commission in July 2025.

The Commission first replied in August 2025. It identified one document as falling within the scope of the access request, to which it refused to give public access in its entirety. In doing so, the Commission argued that disclosure could undermine the EU’s international relations with the country where the project is located.

The complainant contested the Commission's decision by making a 'confirmatory application' in September 2025. When the Commission failed to provide an explicit reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in October 2025.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s implicit refusal to grant public access and, as a first step, asked the Commission to adopt as soon as possible an explicit reply to the complainant’s confirmatory application. In the absence of a reply within the time limit set, the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the document in question, along with documentation on the consultation of the non-EU country concerned.

The Commission replied to the complainant in May 2026, granting wide partial access to the document at issue, redacting only limited personal data, which the complainant did not challenge. The Ombudsman therefore considered that the complaint into the Commission’s implicit refusal of access had been settled by the access now granted. That said, the Ombudsman regretted the delay incurred by the Commission in handling the complainant’s access request, which persisted even after she had opened her inquiry. The Ombudsman continues to closely monitor the matter of delays based on complaints submitted to her.

 

The case concerned the European Commission’s refusal to grant public access to documents related to the applications of mineral extraction and processing projects to be recognised as ‘Strategic Projects’ under the Critical Raw Materials Act. Specifically, the complainant sought access to four Commission decisions granting – or not – the status of Strategic Project and to parts of the applications of 12 projects that are located within the EU and whose applications have been successful. The Commission considered that the documents’ disclosure would undermine the commercial interests of the companies concerned, relying, with respect to the majority of the documents at issue, on a general presumption of non-disclosure. Amongst other elements, the complainant contended that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure, given that the documents are likely to contain important environmental information.

The Ombudsman considered that, due to their very nature, it was unreasonable for the Commission to apply a general presumption of non-disclosure to documents related to the designation of critical raw materials projects as Strategic Projects under the CRMA. In addition, based on the inspection of the documents by her inquiry team, the Ombudsman found that they do not contain sensitive information throughout, including because large parts of them had already been lawfully made public at the time when the Commission issued its final position on the complainant’s access request. The Ombudsman also took the view that the documents contain extensive environmental information, including ‘information related to emissions into the environment’ for which an overriding public interest in disclosure is deemed to exist. The Ombudsman therefore concluded that the Commission’s refusal to give public access constituted maladministration. She recommended that the Commission re-consider its position with a view to granting wide access to the documents at issue.

The case concerned the refusal by the European Parliament to give public access to documents related to two investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into staff misconduct. In refusing access, Parliament relied on four exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure would undermine the privacy and integrity of the persons concerned by the OLAF investigations, the purpose of these investigations, ongoing court proceedings, and its decision-making process.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue and, based on the inspection, the Ombudsman considered that, as regards the documents related to one of the investigations, it was reasonable for Parliament to apply the general presumption of non-disclosure that EU institutions can rely on while OLAF investigations are ongoing and for as long as a reasonable time for follow-up activities by authorities implementing OLAF’s recommendations has not elapsed. 

Given the specific circumstances of the two OLAF investigations at issue, the Ombudsman also found that Parliament had been justified in considering that redacting the documents would not leave any substantive content as they contain a considerable amount of personal data. Since the complainant had not established a need for disclosure of the personal data for a specific purpose in the public interest, as required by the EU legislation on data protection, the Ombudsman found no maladministration and closed the case.