Von der Leyen under accusation: Ombudsman reports SMS management irregularities

In response to a request for access, submitted by a journalist, the Commission indicated that the message had been automatically deleted due to the activation of the “disappearing messages” function on the president’s phone. Examining the Commission’s handling of the matter following the journalist’s complaint, the Ombudsman’s investigation was unable to establish whether the text message was deleted before or after the public access request was made.

It was not even possible to establish whether the Commission searched for the message when it received the request or just a year laterin response to the request. For the European Ombudsman, the inability to establish these relevant timescales “constitutes a problem in itself”. However, information gathered during the investigation showed that the request for access was not handled by the Commission President’s personal office for a period of 15 months.

To address the issues raised by the Commission’s handling of this request, Ombudsman Anjinho recommended that the Commission: “review and improve” its procedures handling requests for public access when the office of the president or a commissioner is involved. The application process should also be monitored “actively and carefully”, to avoid delays.

The European Ombudsman also asked the Commission to retain all text messages exchanged between heads of state or government and commissionersand between ministers and commissioners, for a “reasonable” period of time, to allow for possible public scrutiny through access requests. Finally, the Commission should ensure that, once a request for access to documents has been received, the document in question is retained until the procedure is completed. This would allow an independent body, such as the European Ombudsman or the Court of Justice of the European Union, to verify whether any refusal to grant access is justified.

The applicant, a journalist, requested public access to the text message in January 2024. The Commission took “no action” on the request, until the applicant submitted a further request (confirmatory application) in July 2025. The documents examined showed that the General Secretariat did not send “no reminder” nor “further action” taken to monitor the follow-up given to the request by the Commission President’s cabinet.

Citing case law and legislation on access to EU documents, the Ombudsman contested the Commission’s reasoning that the request for access could be considered “dormant”, as the applicant had not immediately submitted a follow-up request after the deadline for the initial request had expired.

The European Ombudsman’s inquiry team examined the Commission’s file relating to the request for public access and held a meeting with representatives of the Commission in the context of the inquiry.

The Commission spokesperson said during the press briefing in Brussels Balazs Ujvari“takes note of the Ombudsman’s statement and the relevant services will carefully analyze it. For the Commission, transparency obligations are as important as its many other tasks and duties. The Commission will always strictly adhere to the principles that have been repeatedly examined and confirmed by the courts. Now, further improvements to transparency obligations, which apply equally to all European institutions, should be implemented consistently. In this regard, we look forward to continuing the dialogue with the European Ombudsman and other institutions,” he concluded.