On public access to documents – report covering the years 2022 - 2024

–having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law5,

–having regard to its resolution of 10 February 2021 on public access to documents6,

–having regard to the reports and decisions of the European Ombudsman, in particular Special Report OI/2/2022/OAM7 and the decision in case 1316/2021/MIG8,

–having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights,

–having regard to the judgment of the CJEU of 14 May 2025 in Case T-36/23, Stevi and The New York Times v Commission9,

–having regard to its resolution of 13 July 2023 on public access to documents – annual report for the years 2019-202110,

–having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2024 on the time the European Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents11,

–having regard to Rule 122(7) and Rule 149 of its Rules of Procedure,

–having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A10-0000/2025),

A.whereas the EU Treaties guarantee every citizen the right to democratic participation and transparent decision-making, requiring institutions to grant the public access to documents; whereas this fundamental right of access to documents, protected by the Treaties and the Charter, enables effective citizen scrutiny12; whereas the CJEU has affirmed public access to documents as being an essential part of participatory democracy;

B.whereas the CJEU has stressed that public scrutiny of legislative information is essential for democracy and enables citizens to effectively exercise their democratic rights;

C.whereas citizens legitimately expect transparency, efficiency and accountability from public authorities, and the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies should respond to those expectations in a clear and comprehensible manner;

D.whereas access to reliable and accurate information is crucial for safeguarding against misinformation and effectively countering the spread of disinformation;

E.whereas the European Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry outlined in Special Report OI/2/2022/OAM revealed systemic and significant delays by the Commission, particularly in its handling of confirmatory applications (requests by applicants to review its initial response) following initial refusals to grant citizens access to documents;

F.whereas in May 2021, a journalist requested access to documents, including text messages between the Commission President and Pfizer, but the Commission stated that it held no such records on the basis of internal registration rules; whereas the European Ombudsman found this response inadequate and recommended a renewed search, in line with public access obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;

G.whereas in its communication on its 2025 work programme, the Commission expressed its intention to withdraw proposals COM(2011)0137 and COM(2008)0229 – both aimed at amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents – citing the absence of any foreseeable agreement, following years of legislative deadlock since 2011;

Annual reports on public access to documents

1.Notes that in 2024, the Commission amended its transparency framework by adopting revised Rules of Procedure, clarifying rules on public access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;

2.Observes that in 2024, the Commission received 6 938 initial access to document requests and 641 confirmatory applications, marking a 7 % increase from 202313;

3.Highlights the fact that, by 31 December 2024, Parliament’s Public Register of Documents contained 918 803 references (up from 898 267 at the end of 2023); notes that the overall positive response rate remained high at 91 %, with applications handled within approximately nine working days on average14;

Recent developments

4.Stresses that, even where certain information must be withheld, partial disclosure, where it remains both feasible and desirable, should be considered, in the context of the overriding public interest in transparency, which encompasses the principles of sound governance, institutional efficiency, democratic accountability and enhanced civic engagement in policymaking;

5.Expresses concern over the persistent and widespread over-classification of official documents by EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies; reiterates its long-standing call, as conveyed in its previous resolutions on public access to documents, for the establishment of clear, consistent and legally binding rules governing the classification and declassification of documents;

6.Deplores the continued absence of meaningful follow-up by the Commission and the Council in response to these recommendations;

7.Acknowledges that the European Ombudsman’s inquiry outlined in Special Report OI/2/2022/OAM revealed a pattern of systemic delays by the Commission in responding to confirmatory applications, finding that structural shortcomings, insufficient resourcing and ineffective communication ultimately dissuaded individuals from exercising their right of access;

8.Calls on the Commission to ensure that all future legislative proposals are grounded in robust, verifiable data that clearly demonstrates their necessity, proportionality and expected effectiveness; urges the Commission, moreover, to ensure full transparency in the selection of stakeholders consulted during the preparation of legislative proposals;

9.Regrets that transparency shortcomings in the Council still persist; notes with concern the findings on its refusal to grant access to trilogue documents; regrets that recent analyses continue to highlight a lack of proactive publication and registration practices;

10.Welcomes the judgment of the CJEU in Stevi and The New York Times v Commission as an important contribution to the line of case-law that has fostered transparent practices in the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies; notes that the judgment underscores the duty to proactively retain documentation to ensure the effective exercise of the right of access; regrets, however, that the CJEU chose not to reinterpret Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in the light of modern communication methods and evolving transparency obligations;

Recommendations

11.Notes the adoption of the Commission’s revised internal rules on access to documents, and that questions have been raised regarding their compatibility with the Charter, the TEU, the TFEU and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; emphasises that access to documents constitutes a fundamental right under EU law, essential for ensuring transparency, democratic accountability and meaningful citizen participation; calls on the Commission to review these rules in the light of relevant case-law and, where appropriate, clarify or adjust them so as to reach the highest level of transparency;

12.Takes note of the Commission’s withdrawal of its 2008 and 2011 proposals to revise Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; regrets this decision to withdraw them after years of stalemate without a clear roadmap, timeline or meaningful consultation, thereby missing a key opportunity to modernise the existing and outdated framework; calls on the Commission to table an updated proposal which narrows exceptions to strictly necessary cases and sets a new EU standard for openness and public access to documents;

13.Recommends that systemic delays in the handling of confirmatory applications be urgently addressed by improving internal procedures, allocating sufficient resources and ensuring timely and transparent communication with applicants, in order to uphold legal obligations and support public trust and participation;

14.Stresses that transparency and access to documents held by the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies must be the rule and that exceptions to that rule must be strictly interpreted, taking into account the overriding public interest in disclosure in order to allow for public scrutiny;

15.Underlines that a lack of knowledge on whether documents actually exist may impede citizens in exercising their right to request access; stresses that ensuring that citizens are able to understand, follow in detail and participate in the legislative process is a legal requirement under the Treaties and the Charter, and a basic requirement for democratic scrutiny and democracy as a whole;

°

° °

16.Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.