Good morning everyone,

I am delighted to be at the DataHarvest conference again this year. The topic of the session – how the EU’s transparency law works in practice – is timelier than ever.

There are two reasons for this.

First, the EU is taking on new powers to respond to major global and geopolitical challenges, while rapidly revising legislation in key policy areas. Combined with the broader uncertainty of the current period, this is generating even greater public interest in how EU decisions are made — and why.

Second, the EU’s law on access to documents – one of the Union’s most important tools for democratic scrutiny and accountability – is no longer functioning as effectively as it should.

My office conducts inquiries into a range of issues relating to good administration in the EU institutions. Those concerning access to documents accounted for almost a third (32%) of the total of my inquiries in 2025. That is a significant proportion and is unnecessarily high.

It is important to remember that access to EU documents is a fundamental right. The legislation underpinning this right – Regulation 1049/2001 – is based on the principle of granting the widest possible public access to documents.

The rules – as envisaged – are clear. Requests should, including any review process, normally be handled within 60 working days. A document is defined by its content, not by its format – whether it is an email, a text message, or another form of communication. And decisions to refuse access must be properly reasoned and based on the exceptions set out in the law.

In practice, however, deadlines are often missed, particularly within the European Commission, which receives the largest number of requests.

There is also still a lack of a strong culture of proactive transparency, despite some commitments and changes.

At the same time, the system has become increasingly complex and unclear. Citizens are often left guessing about what documents may exist or be accessible, which in turn leads to broader and more burdensome requests.

This is unsatisfactory for requesters – often journalists such as yourselves – but also for the institutions, for whom access to documents has become an increasingly resource-intensive issue.

The challenge today is not only the volume of requests, but also the growing complexity of assessing disclosure. Concerns relating to foreign interference, security, relations between Member States, or the protection of commercial interests are increasingly raised in discussions on access to documents.

I fully recognise that new geopolitical and technological realities raise legitimate and complex questions, which deserve careful reflection. But that reflection must always remain anchored in the fundamental principle underlying the Regulation: the widest possible public access to documents.

This is particularly important in times of crisis. National security arguments are often invoked to justify non-disclosure, yet these are precisely the moments when access to reliable information from official sources becomes most essential. Access to documents is not only a transparency tool; it is also an important safeguard against misinformation and declining public trust.

The difficulty arises when these concerns lead to an increasingly cautious approach, where withholding documents is perceived as the safer option and openness risks becoming the exception rather than the starting point.

The result can be a shift away from a culture of transparency towards a more defensive management of disclosure, with difficult questions too often left for citizens and journalists to challenge before the courts – with a certain degree of unpredictability.

This increasingly leaves one wondering: for whom is the access to documents procedure under Regulation 1049/2001 really designed?

The risk is that transparency comes to be viewed primarily as an administrative burden, rather than as a fundamental democratic right and an essential part of public accountability.

My office has had constructive exchanges with the Commission on these issues, but access to documents remains a persistent and important challenge.

To give just a few recent examples – and to illustrate how much this is a living and evolving right – my office has dealt with requests concerning the activities of the EU border agency, exchanges between the Commission and Member States on rule of law matters, documents relating to the use of EU post-pandemic recovery funds, and information about projects financed by the European Investment Bank.

Naturally, these requests are shaped by the broader political and policy context. One recent inquiry concerned an assessment prepared by the social media platform X regarding its compliance with the EU’s digital rules. Given the significant public interest involved, I was particularly disappointed by the way this request was handled.

Requests have also increasingly concerned text messages and other informal forms of communication. One inquiry currently under examination concerns a request for access to a text message sent by the French President to the President of the European Commission regarding the Mercosur trade agreement.

I hope this inquiry will help establish an important principle: that any document subject to an access request should be preserved immediately, irrespective of whether the institution ultimately considers it disclosable.

This is simply good administration. It enables independent oversight bodies, such as my office, to assess whether the correct decision has been taken, while also helping to reassure the public that nothing is being concealed.

When I raise the possibility of revising the access to documents Regulation, I am often met with the argument that reopening the legislation could ultimately lead to weaker transparency standards.

I do not find this argument convincing. We are already in a situation where the system is no longer functioning as originally intended.

Instead of a culture of openness, we increasingly have a system centred on managing disclosure. At times, it can feel like a game of hide-and-seek between the EU administration and citizens.

And too much of the burden falls on the requester. To navigate the system successfully, citizens and journalists often need to be familiar not only with court judgments and Ombudsman decisions, but also with internal administrative practices and guidelines that are not always clear and may evolve over time.

That is not in keeping with the spirit of the law.

What we need is a modern and effective framework for access to documents: rules that are adapted to today’s digital and data environment; a stronger culture of proactive transparency; and governance structures supported by adequate resources.

In practical terms, this also means designing documents and internal processes from the outset with possible public disclosure in mind – making it easier to redact and release information where necessary, while reducing the administrative burden on staff.

Let me conclude by returning briefly to the work of my office.

While I have given you an honest assessment of where the EU’s transparency framework can and should improve, I would also continue to encourage you to turn to my office if you are not obtaining the information you need to scrutinise EU decision-making.

Many of you – as well as researchers, academics, and interested citizens – already do so. Every inquiry is an opportunity not only to resolve an individual case, but also to help shape administrative culture, clarify principles, and encourage progress towards greater openness.

Indeed, there are many instances in which EU institutions or agencies disclose documents following inquiries by my office.

I will stop here. Transparency ultimately depends not only on rules and institutions, but also on scrutiny, persistence, and the public interest – all of which journalism plays a vital role in sustaining. I look forward to your questions.