What changed

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

P10_TA(2026)0065

on publicPublic access to documents – report covering the years 2022 - 2024

(2025/2137(INI))

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

PE778.284

European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2026 on public access to documents – report covering the years 2022 - 2024 (2025/2137(INI))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), and in particular Articles 41 and 42 thereof,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents1,documents,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies2,bodies,

– having regard to the Commission proposal of 30 April 2008 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (COM(2008)0229),

– having regard to the Commission proposal of 21 March 2011 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (COM(2011)0137),

– having regard to its position at first reading of 15 December 2011 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents3,documents,

– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 February 2025 entitled ‘Commission work programme 2025’ (COM(2025)0045) and to its annexes thereto, and to the intention expressed there to withdraw the proposals COM(2011)0137 and COM(2008)0229 to amend Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents,

– having regard to Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3080 of 4 December 2024 establishing the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and amending Decision C(2000) 36144,3614,

– having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2017 on transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions5,institutions,

– 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 law6,law,

– having regard to its resolution of 10 February 2021 on public access to documents7,documents,

– having regard to its resolution of 13 July 2023 on public access to documents – annual report for the years 2019-20218,2019-2021,

– having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2024 on the time the European Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents9,documents,

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

– having regard to the judgments of the General Court of 17 July 2024 in Cases T-689/21, Auken and Others v Commission, and T-761/21, Courtois and Others v Commission10,Commission,

– having regard to the judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2025 in Case T-36/23, Stevi and The New York Times v Commission11 ,Commission,

– having regard to the reports and decisions of the European Ombudsman, in particular Special Report OI/2/2022/OAM12OI/2/2022/OAM and the decisions in cases 1316/2021/MIG13and1316/2021/MIGand 1499/2021/SF14,1499/2021/SF,

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

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A10-0011/2026),

A. whereas the EU Treaties guarantee every citizen the right to democratic participation and transparent decision-making, requiring EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies 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 scrutiny15,scrutiny, and should therefore be exercised proactively;

B. whereas the CJEU has affirmed that public access to documents is an essential part of participatory democracy; whereas it has ruled that public scrutiny of information used in legislative activities is a precondition for the proper functioning of democratic powers and the exercise of democratic rights; whereas the CJEU has also stressed that transparency is inherent in the legislative procedure and that decisions must be taken as openly and as close to citizens as possible;

K. whereas Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 acknowledges the importance of granting broad access to documents when EU institutions act in their legislative capacity and emphasises the necessity of ensuring direct access to legislative documents;

L. 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 way in which the Commission handled the case is a matter of concern; whereas the European Ombudsman concluded that this response from the Commission constituted maladministration and presented several recommendations as a follow-up of the case, including on how to record text messages, and recommended a renewed search, in line with the public access obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; whereas on 14 May 2025, the General Court annulled the Commission decision to withhold the text messages; whereas, according to the Court, the Commission failed to provide a plausible explanation to justify not possessing the messages16;messages;

M. whereas, under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, text messages qualify as ‘documents’ when they concern matters relating to the policies, activities or decisions falling within an institution’s sphere of responsibility, since a ‘document’ is defined as any content, whatever its medium (on paper, in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording); whereas this does not mean that all text messages exchanged must be registered and accessible, but only those relating to the EU’s policies, activities or decisions; whereas the Commission may still refuse to grant full public access to such messages where one of the exceptions provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, such as the protection of commercial interests, applies;

N. whereas on 6 October 2025, the Commission published in the Official Journal (C/2025/5423) a formal withdrawal of legislative proposals, in particular COM(2011)0137 and COM(2008)0229 ,COM(2008)0229, both aimed at amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents, in the light of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, citing the absence of any foreseeable agreement, following years of legislative deadlock since 2011; whereas this continued impasse raises concerns that reliance on the 2001 framework alone may no longer suffice to effectively reinforce the right of public access to EU documents in a modern institutional and technological context;

O. whereas the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies presents both opportunities and challenges for ensuring accurate and transparent information within the EU and its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, while appropriately designed and governed AI systems can help detect and mitigate misinformation and disinformation and thereby support an informed public discourse, provided that their deployment fully respects fundamental rights, promotes accountability and upholds high standards of transparency in order to maintain public trust and strengthen democratic governance;

P. whereas in Case C-588/21 P17,P, concerning an application by non-profit organisations requesting access to technical standards on the safety of toys, the Court of Justice held that the Commission should have recognised an overriding public interest under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, justifying the disclosure of such harmonised standards;

1. Strongly emphasises that transparency and access to documents constitute fundamental rights under EU law, essential for ensuring transparent, democratic, accountable and meaningful citizen participation;

2. Notes that in 2024, the Commission amended its transparency framework by adopting revised Rules of Procedure, in an attempt to clarify rules on public access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; underlines that concerns were raised by some stakeholders about the revised rules, in particular about the definition of what qualifies as a ‘document’, the additional exceptions to the obligation to register documents or presumptions of non-disclosure, the compliance of that definition and these exceptions and presumptions with established CJEU case-law, and the fact that they would undermine transparency, which would represent a step backwards, and would also undermine the uniform application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;

3. Observes that in 2024, the Commission received 6 938 initial access to document requests and 641 confirmatory applications, marking a 7 % increase in confirmatory applications compared to 202318;2023; observes that in 2023, the Commission received 7 274 initial access to document requests and 599 confirmatory applications, marking a 43 % increase in confirmatory applications compared to 202219;2022; observes that in 2022, the Commission received 7 410 initial access to document requests and 418 confirmatory applications, marking a 17.817,8 % increase in confirmatory applications compared to 202120;2021;

4. Highlights that the Commission, in dealing with confirmatory applications, decided to grant partial or full access to documents in 51 % of cases in 2022, 85 % of cases in 2023 and 60 % of cases in 2024; notes that confirmatory applications increased while initial requests decreased, and that the ratio of decisions reversed at the confirmatory application stage; points out that this illustrates a failure to assess initial requests thoroughly;

5. 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 average21;average;

6. Acknowledges that the Commission received the most access to documents requests out of all the EU institutions, with its Secretariat-General and Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety receiving the most requests;

7. Observes that in 2024 the Commission issued 5 542 initial-stage replies and 305 confirmatory replies, while the other EU institutions have also made progress in their efforts to improve transparency: the Council’s register contained over 527 000 documents by the end of 2024, with more than 72 % of them publicly available, and it processed over 2 800 access requests, mainly from civil society and academia, granting full or partial access in 85 % of cases22;cases;

8. Welcomes these trends as they highlight the EU’s ongoing commitment to transparency amid complex legal and political challenges; notes, however, that in 85 % of the reviewed cases, the Commission did not take a decision within the legal time limits and that, in 60 % of the cases, the delay amounted to more than 60 working days;

14. Expresses concern regarding the frequent use of the exceptions in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to refuse to provide full access to documents; stresses that transparency and access to documents must remain the general rule, while a limited number of legitimate exceptions, as defined in the relevant legislation, for example for security reasons, may be invoked and must be interpreted strictly; recalls that according to the EU Ombudsman, any exception or restriction on public access to documents or information, including legislative documents, should be exceptional and limited to what is absolutely necessary; reiterates that an institution, body, office or agency invoking one of the access exceptions for documents under this article must make an objective and individual case-by-case assessment; calls for the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to integrate these assessments into their practices for providing access to documents;

15. Calls on the Commission to ensure transparency of decisions taken in comitology; recalls that in the comitology procedure, the CJEU considered that revealing Member States’ positions does not as such undermine the decision-making process23;process;

16. Expresses concern about the difficulties in accessing documents from some EU agencies, and these agencies’ prevention of public access to documents and proper scrutiny; stresses the need for greater transparency and proactive access to documents from EU agencies; calls, furthermore, for the EU agencies to implement Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in their policies on access to documents; calls, in particular, on the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) to grant the European Parliament timely access to its documents, in particular information and analysis on safe countries of origin and safe non-EU countries, in line with Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 on the European Union Agency for Asylum24,Asylum, in order to strengthen democratic oversight; calls for the obligation imposed by Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to report annually on the implementation of the Regulation to be extended to all other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies covered by Article 15 TFEU;

17. Deplores the continued absence of meaningful follow-up by the Commission and the Council in response to recommendations made in previous Parliament reports on access to documents; further deplores the fact that the EU institutions do not proactively publish many documents related to legislative files, preventing citizens from knowing which documents actually exist and thus impeding their right to request access to documents;

27. Notes in this regard that registering a document is a consequence of the existence of a document and not a prerequisite for its existence, and that the Commission cannot rely solely on the absence of registration in its system to establish that it does not hold requested documents; strongly believes that losing or deleting a document only because of the mere action of declaring a document ‘short-lived’ fundamentally undermines the principle of transparency and good governance, which poses a dangerous precedent for future handling of access to documents requests;

28. Is concerned by the lack of transparency the Commission has displayed in the publication of COVID-19 purchase agreements; highlights that the CJEU considered that the Commission did not give the public sufficiently broad access to the purchase agreements for COVID-19 vaccines25;vaccines;

29. Calls for the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to implement a policy of transparency by design and publish documents in a proactive manner with the ultimate aim of ensuring that citizens can fully exercise their right of access to documents and perform their scrutiny role;

43. Calls for the establishment of an independent oversight mechanism that regularly reviews classification and declassification practices;

44. Calls on the Commission to be more transparent regarding contracts with third parties; calls on the Commission to be more proactive in publishing as much information as possible on tender procedures in line with Parliament’s previous calls26;calls;

45. Calls for the EU institutions to fully and swiftly follow up on decisions and recommendations taken by the Ombudsman following complaints about refusal of access to document requests; calls for the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to adopt swifter, more accessible and further simplified procedures for handling complaints about refusals to grant access and measures to ensure that citizens can challenge decisions when needed; recommends, in this context, appointing senior officials or independent experts with the capacity to review, without undue delay, appeals concerning access to document requests;

49. Urges the Council to improve its rules and procedures on legislative transparency; calls for the proactive and timely publication of the Council’s general and partial approaches and all Council preparatory documents on legislative files, including the positions of each Member State and minutes from working group meetings, establishing their publication as standard practice at all decision-making stages, in accordance with the principle of democratic participation enshrined in the Treaties and the Charter;

50. Calls for the EU institutions to fully comply with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-540/1527T-540/15 concerning access to four-column documents; further calls for the EU institutions to proactively publish other trilogue documents, such as agendas, summaries of outcomes and minutes of trilogues;

51. Underlines that transparency must go hand in hand with accountability; calls for the introduction of regular audits by the European Ombudsman on institutional compliance with transparency obligations;

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

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

This report aims to reaffirm that access to documents is a fundamental right of every citizen under the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Union’s access-to-documents framework, and to strengthen a transparency culture that brings fairness to policy processes and public discourse. It assesses recent developments and identifies existing shortcomings—systemic delays, over-classification, uneven proactive publication, and uncertainty.

On that basis, the report advances a modern, citizen-centred approach that makes disclosure the rule and secrecy an exception. The report further aims to secure timely, well-reasoned decisions on requests; guarantee early and effective access to legislative, trilogue and international-agreement documents; and to enhance proactive registers. It seeks to ensure equal treatment of stakeholders, enable informed participation, and strengthen democratic accountability across the European institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that she included in her report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that she received, in the preparation of the draft report, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register1, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that she has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

15.1.2026

MINORITY POSITION

pursuant to Rule 56(4) of the Rules of Procedure

Petra Steger (PfE), Tom Vandendriessche (PfE), Marieke Ehlers (PfE), Jaroslav Bžoch (PfE), Roberto Vannacci (PfE), Alexandre Varaut (PfE)

The draft report correctly acknowledges that the institutions of the European Union have been rocked by large-scale corruption scandals. Ursula von der Leyen’s vaccine procurement and missing text messages, the European Parliament’s Qatargate scandal, the scandals around former commissioners Didier Reynders and Frans Timmermans should have never happened and must have personal and regulatory consequences. The report fails to mention the secrecy around the massive grants provided by EU institutions to NGOs and media. The corruption surrounding EU institutions cannot be exposed and eliminated without the full disclosure of all media and NGO-related grants and contracts. During the previous parliamentary term, the Commission awarded EUR 17 billion of public funds to NGOs. The European Commission refuses to release these documents despite multiple demands. The Commission has all the documents and should publish them on a centralised, searchable, official website. The revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 must not become a cosmetic exercise. The Commission must be required to automatically publish all future media and NGO grants and related documents.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Key:

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstentions