European Union officials and watchdogs are sounding the alarm over the European Commission’s persistent failure to handle public access to documents requests within legal deadlines. What began as a 2023 admonishment by the European Ombudsman has snowballed into parliamentary resolutions, court judgments, NGO lawsuits, and media outcry – all converging on a transparency crisis at the heart of Brussels. The Commission’s delays in granting Freedom of Information (FOI) requests – often stretching many months beyond the 30 working days mandated by EU law – have been deemed “systematic and significant”, undermining citizens’ fundamental right to know and casting doubt on the EU executive’s commitment to openness. This deepening saga, which some have dubbed a new “Pfizergate” after a high-profile vaccine texts scandal, reveals a clash between the EU’s lofty transparency principles and the Commission’s administrative culture. It has prompted interventions from EU institutions, rebukes from judges, mobilization by civil society, and pointed criticism from journalists. Access delayed is access denied, warns the Ombudsman – and as of 2025, the warnings show no sign of abating.
Ombudsman Uncovers “Systematic and Significant” Delays
The alarm was first raised formally in late 2023 by European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly, who published a special report exposing widespread maladministration in how the Commission handles FOI requests. In a speech to the European Parliament, O’Reilly detailed “systematic and significant delays” in the Commission’s processing of public document requests, particularly at the appeal (confirmatory) stage. According to her inquiry, 85% of appeals in the sample exceeded legal time limits, with over 60% taking more than 60 working days – double the maximum allowed. Even initial requests fared poorly, missing the 15-day deadline (extendable to 30 days) in roughly one out of six cases.
O’Reilly concluded that the Commission’s failure to meet these deadlines was “systemic” and constituted maladministration, blatantly breaching EU transparency law. “Access delayed is access denied,” she admonished, noting that disclosing information long after public debates have moved on robs citizens of meaningful scrutiny. In one telling example, a journalist had to wait over a year for a decision on documents about migrant camp security – and two of her requests remained unanswered even as O’Reilly spoke. In another, an NGO’s simple request languished for ten months. Such lengthy silences defeat the purpose of FOI, O’Reilly argued, as “granting access months or years after the matter has been in the public eye can be meaningless”.
Behind the delays lies a growing crush of requests. The Commission received over 8,400 document requests in 2021 – a number rising in the wake of crises like COVID-19, the war in Ukraine, and other EU-wide challenges. The Commission itself has acknowledged an increased volume and complexity of applications, which it says have strained its capacity. “We process access-to-document requests without any major issues,” was the Commission’s defensive stance – while conceding it faces “many challenges” with more requests and limited staff. It also rolled out a new electronic documents portal to streamline handling of FOI files, a move O’Reilly welcomed as a “positive step”. But for the Ombudsman, these efforts have not scratched the surface of the core problem: a culture and practice that treats transparency as optional. She urged “a fundamental change both in terms of culture and of practice” – a change, she stressed, that “must come from the top” of the Commission.
EU Parliament Demands Action and Threatens Legal Steps
The Ombudsman’s damning findings did not fall on deaf ears. In March 2024, the European Parliament unanimously backed O’Reilly’s special report and “urged the Commission to correct its systematic and significant delays” in processing FOI requests. A strongly worded parliamentary resolution catalogued the Commission’s transparency failures, “deeply regretting” that in 85% of cases reviewed, decisions were not made within legal deadlines. MEPs “underlined” that such delays “amount to maladministration” and violate citizens’ fundamental rights. The Parliament insisted that transparency “plays a crucial role” in legitimacy and that “delays in granting access may undermine citizens’ ability to participate in the democratic process”, especially when information is time-sensitive.
Crucially, the resolution put the Commission on notice. It called on the Commission to implement all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, including hiring more staff to handle requests, embracing proactive publication of documents, and adopting a “more open and constructive attitude” toward requesters. It even singled out pending controversies: MEPs “requested immediate” publication of all COVID-19 vaccine contracts financed with public funds, and “finally and immediately” releasing text messages between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO about a €35 billion vaccine purchase. Those text messages – which the Commission infamously claimed it did not retain – had become emblematic of the EU’s transparency gap.
Most dramatically, Parliament threatened to use legal powers if the Commission failed to improve. The resolution warned that if systemic delays persisted by the time the new College of Commissioners took office (after the 2024 elections), Parliament would consider “all available instruments” – including taking the Commission to court. MEPs noted they have the right under the treaties to sue the Commission for infringing Article 15(3) TFEU, which guarantees the right of access to documents. This was a rare escalation: the legislature essentially telling the executive to shape up or face potential litigation for breaching EU law. With European elections and a renewal of EU institutions on the horizon, the Parliament’s message was clear – the culture of delay must end, or the Commission could be hauled before judges.
Courts Rebuke “Pfizergate” Secrecy in Landmark Ruling
While the political pressure mounted, a pivotal legal battle over transparency was unfolding in Europe’s courts. In early 2025, the EU’s General Court (the bloc’s second-highest court) delivered a stinging judgment against the Commission’s handling of President von der Leyen’s text messages with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla – a case that had come to symbolize Brussels’ secrecy. The “Pfizergate” affair began when a journalist from The New York Times filed an FOI request for von der Leyen’s SMS exchanges during negotiations of a massive COVID-19 vaccine contract. The Commission’s response – that it “no longer had the texts” and that such messages didn’t qualify as “documents” – provoked outrage and an Ombudsman inquiry in 2022, which condemned the Commission’s position as maladministration. Ultimately, the New York Times took the matter to court, and in May 2025 the General Court sided with the journalist.
In a ruling hailed by transparency advocates, the court “overturned the Commission’s decision to deny the New York Times access to text messages”, finding the Commission acted unlawfully both by refusing the documents and by failing to provide a satisfactory explanation for their absence. The judges “chastised the Commission” for essentially arguing that because the messages were not formally archived, they did not exist – a stance the court flatly rejected. Importantly, the judgment clarified that if an institution cannot credibly claim a document does not exist, it must explain plausibly how it searched for it and what happened to it. In other words, the Commission could no longer shrug off requests by saying “we didn’t keep it” without proving it made serious efforts to find the material.
The ruling was a spectacular rebuke that struck at the Commission’s legal defenses. “The Commission’s entire argument – essentially ‘there are no texts because we did not archive them’ – came tumbling down,” observed Follow the Money, a Dutch investigative outlet. The court underscored that under EU law, what matters is a document’s content, not its format or the Commission’s record-keeping practices. A text message, if related to EU policies or decisions, is a document subject to FOI rules. By insisting otherwise, the Commission violated the fundamental right of access to documents.
Brussels insiders dubbed the case “Pfizergate” for its explosive mix of public health billions and opaque backchannels. And while the General Court cannot force the Commission to produce something it claims is lost, the judgment left a mark. Within its 60-page ruling, judges noted evidence that von der Leyen could have manually deleted the Pfizer texts – contradicting the Commission’s earlier assurances that messages were not auto-purged. In the court’s eyes, the Commission had not done enough to preserve or explain the fate of records of immense public interest. As a result, the Commission was ordered to re-examine the FOI request and “provide a coherent explanation” of how it handled the texts.
The Commission, facing public embarrassment, announced it would “closely study” the verdict and issue a new decision on the journalist’s request. It also pledged to review its record-keeping practices in light of the court’s findings. But critics noted that even after the May 2025 ruling, Brussels was in “no rush” to come clean. A Commission spokesperson admitted there was “no specific timeline” for replying to the New York Times. In fact, when an FOI requester filed a fresh demand for the texts on the day of the judgment, the Commission promptly extended its own deadline – effectively postponing any answer. To transparency advocates, this foot-dragging suggested the culture of delay persisted despite the legal defeat. Nevertheless, the court’s message was unmistakable: the Commission’s opaque handling of public records “was wrong” and incompatible with EU transparency law. The hope is that this judicial precedent will force Brussels to change how it treats informal communications and stop exploiting gray zones to avoid disclosure.
Auto-Deleting Messages and a New Ombudsman Inquiry
If the Pfizer text saga highlighted past secrecy, a new controversy in 2025 revealed the Commission may be doubling down on practices that evade transparency. In September 2025, it emerged that President von der Leyen and her top officials have been using auto-deleting messaging apps – effectively ensuring that many communications vanish before anyone can request them. The issue came to light when Politico reported that French President Emmanuel Macron had sent von der Leyen a Signal message in January 2024, lobbying her over a contentious EU–Mercosur trade deal. When Follow the Money journalist Alexander Fanta filed a document request for that message, the Commission’s response took over a year and a half. Only in mid-2025 did the Commission finally confirm that von der Leyen had indeed received Macron’s text – but that it had been automatically deleted under her settings.
Officials defended the practice as a cybersecurity measure, saying von der Leyen activated Signal’s “disappearing messages” feature “to prevent possible major data leaks” in line with internal IT security rules. According to the Commission, those 2022 guidelines instruct staff to use auto-delete for sensitive communications. “The President had activated this feature to comply with those rules,” the Commission wrote to the FOI requester, effectively admitting that any messages not deemed important are purged by design. In the Macron message case, the Commission decided the text “reiterated a well-known position” of France and thus “had no particular administrative or legal effect” – so it was never logged as a document and was automatically erased. The FOI request for it was consequently refused on grounds that no record existed.
This revelation – that Europe’s highest-ranking official routinely auto-deletes correspondence – raised serious alarm among transparency advocates. “Setting Signal messages to auto-delete undermines the very transparency the EU’s rules are meant to ensure,” warned Shari Hinds of Transparency International EU, noting it “creates a blanket barrier to accessing communications”. By design, auto-deletion means “we likely won’t see any of [von der Leyen’s messages], ever”, Fanta observed, calling the practice an affront to the EU’s “fundamental right” of access to documents. The Ombudsman had previously urged that “whether something is an email, letter or text is irrelevant – it’s the content that matters” for archiving. Yet the Commission’s policy effectively flips that principle: if a communication comes via text and is auto-erased, its content is lost to history, regardless of relevance.
The uproar spurred the new European Ombudswoman, Teresa Anjinho, to intervene. In late September 2025, Anjinho launched an inquiry into how the Commission handled the Macron text request, suspecting the case may indicate broader issues in record-keeping and FOI compliance. The inquiry will probe whether the Commission properly searched for and assessed the message, and whether its auto-delete policy itself violates EU transparency obligations. Notably, this is not the first time von der Leyen’s private communications have attracted scrutiny – but it is the first test for Anjinho, O’Reilly’s successor, who has signaled she will continue the tough line on access to documents. The Ombudsman’s office made clear that even informal messages related to policy may need to be retained, and is examining if the Commission’s internal rules are compatible with Regulation 1049/2001 (the EU’s FOI law). The outcome could have implications for how officials across the EU handle modern communications, from emails to WhatsApp chats.
For citizens and watchdogs, the Macron message saga is further proof that the Commission’s transparency culture has not fundamentally changed since the Ombudsman’s 2023 warning. If anything, critics say, it has worsened: the Commission has institutionalized secrecy by encouraging the automatic purging of messages. The timing is also striking – von der Leyen quietly enabled auto-delete in 2022, just as questions about her Pfizer texts were mounting. And despite promising after “Pfizergate” to review practices, the Commission now openly argues that ephemeral messaging is acceptable as long as officials deem the content unimportant. This stance will be tested by the Ombudsman inquiry and, if unresolved, potentially by courts in the future. As one transparency advocate put it, “if the EU’s own leaders delete their messages, it guts the public’s right to know” – a scenario that strikes at the core of democratic accountability.
NGOs and Journalists Fight Back Against Secrecy
Outside the halls of power, civil society and media organizations have mobilized to challenge the Commission’s approach to transparency. Frustrated by both the chronic delays and new policies that restrict access, NGOs have taken the battle to court. In March 2025, the Madrid-based group Access Info Europe filed a legal challenge against the Commission’s revised internal rules on access to documents, which were adopted at the end of 2024. Access Info, joined by veteran EU transparency advocate Emilio de Capitani and law professor Päivi Leino-Sandberg, argues that several provisions of the Commission’s new rules “violate the EU Charter, the TFEU, and Regulation 1049/2001”. Among the most controversial provisions are those that narrow the definition of a “document”, create new exceptions to registering documents, and even introduce an obligation to delete text messages after a short period. The suit contends that these restrictions undermine democratic accountability and flout established case law requiring a broad right of access. In parallel, environmental law group ClientEarth launched a related action, warning that the rules also breach environmental transparency standards by allowing deletion of records (like communications about green policy) that should be preserved.
Transparency campaigners see the Commission’s rule changes as a deliberate attempt to “reduce current standards” of openness. “There is still a lot of work to be done to ensure compliance with EU law,” O’Reilly reminded a journalists’ workshop in late 2024, noting the 85% deadline-miss rate as a glaring sign. In that forum – organized by the Association of European Journalists – O’Reilly and investigative reporters warned that FOI in the EU is beset by self-censorship (requesters give up due to the hassle) and by authorities’ tendency to over-redact or refuse files on dubious grounds. Indeed, some member states (with the Commission’s backing) have pushed to weaken EU transparency law by exempting whole categories like competition and state aid from disclosure. Against this backdrop, activists are wary that any reform of Regulation 1049 could be a double-edged sword: necessary to enforce deadlines, perhaps, but also an opportunity for secrecy-minded actors to dilute the public’s rights. Access Info’s litigation aims to stop the Commission from unilaterally imposing a “de facto” weakening of FOI through internal rules, by asking the General Court to annul the offending provisions. The case is pending, and its outcome could set a major precedent on whether EU institutions can carve out new transparency exemptions without formal legislative change.
Journalists themselves have also taken a stand. In April 2025, a coalition of reporters from Brussels and across Europe published an open letter accusing the Commission of undermining transparency and impeding the media’s watchdog role. Addressed to Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič (the Commissioner in charge of transparency), the letter decried “severe delays” in responses – often lasting more than a year – which hinder journalists from fulfilling their watchdog function. It also blasted the Commission’s new internal rules for restricting access to legal and regulatory files, noting these measures had already sparked legal challenges. The signatories echoed the Ombudsman’s findings and demanded “full and timely access” to documents, especially those in the legislative process that should by default be public. They warned that the Commission’s opaque practices make it harder to follow lobbying and policymaking, ultimately eroding public trust. The letter – open for additional signatures – called for urgent reforms to FOI procedures and requested a dialogue with the Commission, reflecting a deep frustration in the journalistic community. Even traditionally pro-EU voices have grown critical: an opinion piece in EUalive noted the “divergence between high principles and delivery” on EU openness, arguing that “the case for change” made by the Ombudsman and the “very clear decision in the Pfizergate texts case” should prompt urgent action.
Media outlets, for their part, have given the issue prominent coverage. Major European newswires and papers have run stories on the Commission’s transparency woes, from Reuters highlighting the Ombudsman’s rebuke over vaccine deal texts to Politico and Euronews reporting on the Macron message probe. The Belga News Agency bluntly stated that von der Leyen’s reliance on auto-deleting messages “intensifies the criticism” of how Europe’s top official handles sensitive communications. Belga also noted that a “renewed transparency debate” has been sparked in Brussels, as these disclosures “echo the Pfizergate affair” where von der Leyen was widely criticized for secretive vaccine negotiations. Crucially, media reports have drawn public attention to details the Commission might prefer to downplay – such as the fact that during the summer of 2025, the Commission quietly informed the New York Times that von der Leyen’s chief of staff had deemed the Pfizer texts ‘not important’ back in 2021, suggesting they were subsequently lost or destroyed. This kind of revelation fuels suspicions that officials deliberately discard records to avoid scrutiny, reinforcing the mantra that “secrecy fuels suspicion” (as O’Reilly told Reuters).
A Test of EU Values: Will Transparency Prevail?
Two years on from the Ombudsman’s warning, the battle over EU transparency has only intensified. EU institutions have been forced to confront uncomfortable truths: the Commission’s delays in handling access requests are not just bureaucratic niggles but breaches of law that undermine democracy and accountability. The Ombudsman’s special report and the European Parliament’s resolution together established a strong institutional consensus that the status quo is unacceptable. The Parliament went so far as to threaten suing the Commission – a dramatic step that reflects how seriously lawmakers view the issue. EU courts, for their part, have upheld the primacy of the public’s right to know, delivering a landmark judgment that has fortified the legal framework for access to documents. The General Court’s ruling in the Pfizer texts case not only vindicated the principle that “documents” include modern communications, even if the Commission fails to file them, but also put the Commission on notice that cavalier excuses for non-disclosure won’t hold up under judicial scrutiny.
Meanwhile, NGOs and activists are pressing their advantage, using litigation and advocacy to block any backsliding. By challenging the Commission’s new internal rules in court, groups like Access Info are effectively asserting that transparency rights cannot be eroded by stealth. Their case will test the limits of institutional autonomy: Can the Commission set its own archiving and FOI procedures that conflict with the spirit (or letter) of the law? Likewise, the coalition of journalists has publicly shamed the Commission’s failures, an embarrassment that Commission leaders cannot easily ignore, especially as they champion “European values” abroad. The fact that journalists felt compelled to publish an open letter speaks volumes about a breakdown in trust. “We need to be able to implement the values we are preaching,” urged MEP Evin Incir, noting the irony that the EU demands transparency from others but struggles to uphold it internally.
The media scrutiny and public debate show no sign of relenting. With President von der Leyen starting a second term under the cloud of multiple no-confidence motions and questions about her communication practices, the Commission’s credibility is at stake. Every new story about vanished texts or protracted FOI battles chips away at the image of a “modern, service-minded” administration that von der Leyen’s team aspires to project. As one commentary noted, the EU on paper scores high for openness, but in practice there is a “divergence” that must be closed. The Ombudsman’s parting advice was that real change will require leadership from the very top – a pointed reference to the Commission President and College. It remains to be seen whether the Commission will heed this call. So far, its steps have been mixed: a new portal here, a public promise there, but also internal guidelines that many view as entrenching opacity.
Europe’s “access to documents” saga is more than an institutional tiff – it’s a test of the EU’s democratic values. In the words of Emily O’Reilly, “Freedom of information is essential to a genuine democracy”, especially in an EU where decisions are remote from everyday voters. As the 2024–2029 Commission begins its work, the pressure is on to bridge the gap between principle and practice. The European Parliament has explicitly tied this issue to the “defence of democracy”, one of von der Leyen’s own stated priorities. If improvements are not forthcoming, Parliament could yet make good on its warning to haul the Commission before the Court of Justice – an unprecedented showdown over transparency.
Ultimately, the coming months will show whether the Commission takes concrete steps to streamline its FOI processes, boost staffing, and adopt a presumption of disclosure as the norm. Will it implement the Ombudsman’s suggestions – like proactively publishing more documents and training staff to handle requests swiftly? Or will it continue to argue that security and expediency justify keeping communications ephemeral and citizens in the dark? The stakes are high. Every FOI delay or refusal that smacks of bad faith not only frustrates the individual requester, but also chips away at Europeans’ trust in their Union. As advocates often remind Brussels, transparency is not a bureaucratic burden – it is “a cornerstone of democracy”. The ongoing tussle over access to EU documents will determine how solid that cornerstone really is in the European Union of 2025 and beyond.
Sources:
