The Council of the European Union has upheld its refusal to grant full public access to documents related to the appointment of European Prosecutors for the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), rejecting a confirmatory application from an academic researcher. The decision, issued on 1 August 2026, maintains the General Secretariat's position that disclosure would harm personal data protection, privacy, and the integrity of the selection process under EU transparency rules.
The applicant, a researcher, had initially requested documents concerning the appointment of European Prosecutors, specifically those where the Council may have deviated from the rankings provided by the EPPO selection panel. The General Secretariat partially refused access, citing exceptions under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (protection of privacy and integrity of the individual) and Article 4(3) (protection of the institution's decision-making process). The refusal argued that disclosure could harm candidates' reputations and undermine future selection procedures.
In the confirmatory application, the researcher contended that there is an overriding public interest in transparency regarding the EPPO's independence and the appointment process. The applicant specifically highlighted cases where the Council may have departed from the selection panel's rankings, arguing that such deviations raise accountability concerns. The researcher invoked the principle of openness enshrined in EU law, particularly in the context of justice and fundamental rights.
The Council's review confirmed that the requested documents fall under the exceptions for personal data protection and the decision-making process. It found no evidence of an overriding public interest that would justify disclosure, noting that the appointment process is designed to ensure the independence and integrity of the EPPO. The Council emphasized that releasing the documents could deter qualified candidates from applying in the future and compromise the confidentiality of internal deliberations.
The decision affects several stakeholders: EU citizens and civil society groups advocating for transparency in EU governance may view this as a setback for accountability; academic researchers and journalists face continued barriers to accessing information on high-level appointments; the EPPO itself benefits from maintained confidentiality, which protects its selection procedures and candidate privacy; and the Council preserves its decision-making autonomy but risks criticism over opacity in a sensitive area of EU justice policy.
The applicant may challenge the Council's decision before the Court of Justice of the European Union, as provided under Article 263 TFEU. The case highlights ongoing tensions between transparency and confidentiality in EU institutions, particularly in the context of judicial appointments. No further action is expected from other EU bodies at this stage.