Head of Unit
Secretariat‐General
Unit SG.A.3 - Transparency 

 

 

Dear Ms X,

The Ombudsman has received a complaint against the European Commission.

The complaint concerns how the Commission dealt with a request for public access to documents[1] made in September 2025 and registered under the reference EASE 2025/4615. The complainant is seeking public access to documents related to the application for the status of ‘strategic project’ submitted for the Jadar lithium and boron project in Serbia.

In its initial decision of 3 November 2025, the Commission identified seven documents as falling within the scope of the public access request. It refused to give access to the documents in their entirety, arguing that disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards defence and military matters[2] and the financial and economic policies[3] of the European Union, as well the protection of commercial interests^[4] (for which the Commission relied on a general presumption of non-disclosure).

On 23 November 2025, the complainant submitted a confirmatory application contending that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure given the possible environmental impact of the project.

The Commission has not yet taken a final position on the complainant’s public access request.

In the absence of an explicit confirmatory reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman on 24 January 2026.

The Ombudsman has decided to open an inquiry regarding the Commission’s implicit refusal to give public access under Regulation 1049/2001.[5]

As a first inquiry step, the Ombudsman requests that the Commission reply to the confirmatory application as soon as possible, and not later than 27 February 2026.

Should the delay persist beyond this date, or should the complainant be dissatisfied with the access granted following the adoption of a confirmatory decision, the Ombudsman intends to review the documents at issue.[6] In that case, the Ombudsman will contact the Commission again with a separate request, setting out the modalities of the inspection.

In the context of a strategic inquiry, the Ombudsman has already found that the Commission’s systemic delays in processing public access requests amount to maladministration.[7] Therefore, while the Ombudsman regrets the delay in the Commission’s response to the request, she does not open an inquiry into the reasons for the delay in this specific case.

The inquiries officer responsible for the case is Mr Nicholas Hernanz.

Yours sincerely,

Rosita Hickey
Director of Inquiries

Strasbourg, 09/02/2026

 

[1] Under Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj.

[2] In accordance with Article 4(1)(a), first indent of Regulation 1049/2001.

[3] In accordance with Article 4(1)(a), fourth indent of Regulation 1049/2001.

[4] In accordance with Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation 1049/2001.

^[5] See Article 8(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 according to which, in the absence of an explicit reply within the timeline provided, this gives rise to an implicit negative reply to the request for review.

[6] Please note that the Ombudsman opened an inquiry last year in case 3164/2025/MIG (“How the European Commission dealt with a request for public access to documents related to an application by a lithium mining project in Serbia to be designated as a 'strategic project' under the Critical Raw Materials Act”), which appears to concern the same set of seven documents. The Ombudsman has already received copies of the seven documents for inspection in the context of that inquiry.

[7] Decision in the Ombudsman strategic inquiry OI/2/2022/OAM on the time the European Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/175321