Dear Mr X,

I am writing to seek a solution in the above case.

The case concerns the European Research Executive Agency’s (REA) refusal to give public access to a letter that it sent to a beneficiary[1] regarding the recovery of EU funding in July 2025. REA refused access based on the need to protect personal data (which the complainant did not contest) and the need to protect the commercial interests of the beneficiary concerned.[2]

Following the complainant’s confirmatory application, on 9 March 2026, REA confirmed its position that no access could be granted to the letter.

In particular, REA argued that the letter contains sensitive commercial information that is not yet in the public domain, such as sensitive financial information (internal control modus operandi and strategies, confidential character of the inspection including outcome of investigations) and internal organisation/administrative data and affairs (such as potential findings relating to the beneficiary’s staff or partners).

REA took the view that disclosure of this information would undermine the commercial interests of the beneficiary concerned, as it might expose the beneficiary to outside criticism, reputational damage and the loss of business partners.

REA also considered that there is no overriding public interest in disclosure. It concluded that access had to be refused to ensure “fair and consistent applications for participation in EU funding and possible recovery rules, as well as to provide a necessary degree of discretion during ongoing processes. Disclosure must be aligned with relevant regulatory frameworks, which dictate when and how information can be shared publicly.”

Regarding the possibility to grant partial access, REA contended that the parts of the letter that could possibly be disclosed would not provide any substantive insight or value.

On 9 March 2026, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The complainant is dissatisfied with REA’s refusal to disclose the letter. He questioned whether the document can be deemed commercially sensitive throughout and argued that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

In particular, the complainant noted that the beneficiary concerned had issued a press release announcing the voluntary repayment of EU funding before the letter at issue was sent. He added that there is a public interest in disclosure, namely in understanding why REA accepted the repayment of funding without having conducted its own assessment of the situation, although the related projects had been closed more than six years earlier and had undergone an audit at the time.

In reply to the complaint, REA reiterated its position and the arguments put forward.

Based on the inspection conducted by my inquiry team, it appears that the letter at issue does not contain the information described by REA, such as sensitive financial information of the beneficiary or information on its internal organisation.

Rather, in the letter, REA welcomes the beneficiary’s decision to initiate an investigation, to share the findings of that investigation with it and to take corrective measures. REA also informed the beneficiary that its relevant services had been informed, that they were analysing the information provided, and that they would be in touch as regards the recovery of any unduly received EU funding. The letter is rather short and formulated in very general terms. It does not reflect specific findings of the beneficiary’s or REA’s own investigation into the matter, such as the titles of the specific projects concerned or the amounts the beneficiary intended or had to pay back.

EU institutions cannot rely on the need to protect commercial interests simply because the requested document contains information related to a legal person and its business relations. The relevant exception contained in the EU legislation on public access to documents (Regulation 1049/2001)[3] serves to protect commercially sensitive information, that is, information that, if disclosed, would undermine the legitimate commercial interests of the legal person concerned, such as information relating to business strategy or know-how.[4] When invoking this exception, EU institutions have to explain how disclosure could specifically and actually undermine the legitimate commercial interests at stake. In addition, the risk that damage would occur must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical.[5]

In the current case, the mere fact that a document refers to an internal investigation into the use of EU funding by a beneficiary does not, as such, render the information commercially sensitive. What is more, the information contained in the document does not go beyond the information that has already been made public by the beneficiary in a press release at the time and that is still available on its website[6], except for the fact that REA was looking into the matter itself.

It thus remains unclear why REA considers that disclosure of the letter could subject the beneficiary to outside criticism, reputational damage and loss of business partners or clients.

In addition, it would seem that REA’s refusal to give public access to the letter led the complainant to believe that REA accepted the recovery of amounts based on information provided by a beneficiary, rather than looking into the matter itself, which is apparently not the case.

To conclude, it appears that the information contained in the document at issue cannot reasonably be considered to be commercially sensitive within the meaning of Regulation 1049/2001, and that disclosure would reassure the public that both the beneficiary and REA are taking the necessary steps to address the situation adequately.

In light of the above, I would like to propose, as a solution, that REA reconsider its position on the complainant’s access request, with a view to granting wide public access (with redactions of personal data only), taking into account the above considerations. In this context and in case of doubts, REA could consult the beneficiary concerned to obtain its views on the matter.

I would be grateful to receive your reply to this letter by 30 June 2026.[7]

At this stage, the solution proposal is confidential. My inquiry team has, however, informed the complainant of my intention to seek a solution in this case.[8]

Please note that our usual practice is to send a copy of the solution proposal to the complainant for comments, together with a copy of the institution’s reply to it, once we have received that reply. I would therefore ask REA to inform my Office if any information contained in the solution proposal, or in its reply, should not be shared with the complainant.

Yours sincerely,

Teresa Anjinho 
European Ombudsman 

Strasbourg, 29/05/2026 

 

[1] PIC number 999988424.

[2] In accordance with Articles 4(1)(b) and 4(2), first indent of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European

Parliament, Council and Commission documents: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj.

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

[4] See, for example, judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018, PTC Therapeutics International v EMA, T­718/15, paragraph 85: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=199044&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=13039858.

[5] See, for example, judgment of the Court of 4 September 2018, ClientEarth v Commission, C‑57/16 P, paragraph 51: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=205322&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=19039430.

[6] See: https://www.erasmusmc.nl/nl-nl/artikelen/erasmus-mc-betaalt-subsidiegeld-terug-na-onderzoek?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

[7] If you wish to submit documents or information that you consider to be confidential, and which should not be disclosed to the complainant, please mark them ‘Confidential’. Encrypted emails can be sent to our dedicated mailbox.

[8] In line with Article 2(10) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman, Regulation 2021/1163 of 24 June 2021 laying down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties:

https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/legal-basis/statute/en