Dear European Ombudsman,

I am writing to file a complaint against the European Banking Authority (EBA) concerning their refusal to grant public access to documents related to greenwashing, specifically following my confirmatory application pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (Access to Documents Regulation).

All correspondence are to be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...

Below the specific complain:

My initial request sought access to documents related to the EBA's assessment and monitoring of greenwashing in the financial sector. I argued that a clear overriding public interest exists for the disclosure of these documents, given the significant public concern surrounding greenwashing and the need for transparency and accountability in the financial system. I further argued that the public has a legitimate interest in understanding the scope and nature of greenwashing activities and the EBA's response.

The EBA’s response, while granting access to one limited document (already publicly available in aggregated form), denied access to a key document – a spreadsheet containing raw data and figures provided by RepRisk – citing exceptions under Article 4(2) and 4(3) of the Access to Documents Regulation.

I believe the EBA's justifications for withholding this document are insufficient and do not adequately balance the claimed exceptions against the overriding public interest in transparency and accountability regarding greenwashing. My specific concerns are as follows:

Commercial Interest of RepRisk: The EBA's reliance on RepRisk's claims about potential harm to their commercial interests, without independent verification, is concerning. I argued in my initial request that anonymizing or redacting commercially sensitive details to some degree could be a viable option to balance competing interests. The EBA has failed to address this point adequately. Simply stating that disclosure would "compromise their commercial interests" and that the data is "part of RepRisk suite of products and services" is insufficient justification for withholding information on a matter of significant public interest. The EBA's claim that competitors could "unfairly benefit" is speculative and lacks concrete evidence or explanation.

Protection of Investigations and Decision-Making Process: The EBA claims disclosure would undermine its investigations and decision-making process. While I acknowledge the need to protect ongoing investigations, a blanket denial of access is disproportionate, especially concerning data related to past cases (up to 2022), as I specifically requested. The EBA has failed to provide a clear distinction between data related to ongoing investigations and past cases. My suggestion of partial disclosure, redacting genuinely sensitive information, has not been properly considered. The argument that disclosure would be contrary to their "legal obligations" to conduct a thorough analysis and could lead to "misinterpretations" is paternalistic and undermines the public's right to information.

Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with RepRisk: The EBA's reliance on an NDA with RepRisk is not a sufficient justification for withholding information in the face of a clear overriding public interest. Contractual obligations cannot supersede the public's right to access information, particularly when it concerns a matter of such significant public concern as greenwashing in the financial sector. The EBA’s concern about “harming commercial relations” should not outweigh the public interest in transparency.

Lack of Detailed Justification: The EBA's response lacks a detailed and substantiated justification for its claims. It relies on vague assertions of harm to commercial interests and the integrity of investigations without providing specific evidence. My request for a more detailed justification, including specific evidence, has not been met.

I believe the EBA's decision is not in line with the principles of transparency and access to documents, and that the public interest in understanding and addressing greenwashing outweighs the justifications provided for withholding the requested information.

I therefore request the European Ombudsman to investigate this matter and recommend that the EBA reconsider its decision and grant me access to the requested document, potentially with appropriate redactions to protect genuinely sensitive information.

Sincerely,
Joachim Kattrup
Brofogedvej 8, 2.sal.
2400 Copenhagen NV
Denmark

Dear Euro-Ombudsman,

Thank you. Yes I confirm that I posted the wrong link and the correct information is to be found at the link you list similar to this: https://www.asktheeu.org/request/documen...

Yours sincerely,

Joachim Kattrup

Dear European Ombudsman,

Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.

I Kindly remind you that three month has passed since your last update.

Please inform about status and progress in this case.

Yours faithfully,

Joachim Kattrup

Dear Euro-Ombudsman,

Thank you for the update, I appriciate.

Yours sincerely,

Joachim Kattrup

Dear European Ombudsman

Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.

I am filing the following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request 'Complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning non-disclosure of documents related to greenwashing'.

The European Ombudsman stated 4 weeks go (May 13, 2025) the case is currently finalising its analysis, and We promised to inform me about the next inquiry steps as soon as possible.

Pleas specify a time frame for "as soon as possible".

I recall that this case is important and relevant to the public: When companies make misleading claims about their environmental practices—is a serious threat to trust in the financial system and efforts to combat climate change. The public has a right to know how financial institutions are addressing this issue and whether regulators like the EBA are effectively monitoring it. Transparency ensures accountability, builds trust, and allows informed public debate.

Without access to key data, it’s impossible to properly assess the scale of greenwashing or how regulators are responding. Allowing vague claims of commercial interest or confidentiality to block disclosure risks hiding failures or weaknesses in oversight. Especially when environmental and financial stability are at stake, the public interest in transparency must come first.

Yours faithfully,

Joachim Kattrup

Dear SPOERER Markus,

Thanks for the repsons. I have noted that end of august 2025 is the new deadline.

Yours sincerely,

Joachim Kattrup

Dear European Ombudsman (ATT: Markus Spoerer)

I am filing the following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request 'Complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning non-disclosure of documents related to greenwashing'.

I note that the European Ombudsman's own deadline of "complete the next inquiry step in August 2025" has now been exceeded. I also note that the newly stated deadline has been postponed multiple times and urge that the requested documents be provided to me as soon as possible or explain your progress and stets in the case.

Yours faithfully,

Joachim Kattrup

Dear European Ombudsman,

Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.

I am filing the following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request 'Complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning non-disclosure of documents related to greenwashing'.

I kindly remind that this is long due deadline, please provide information about the case and progress.

Yours faithfully,

Joachim Kattrup

Dear Euro-Ombudsman,

Thank you for the information - I looking forward the respons and appriciate your focus. However you did not set any timelimit. I will recall the question within 3 weeks from now, the October 13rd. if I have not heart any further respons.

Yours sincerely,

Joachim Kattrup

Dear Euro-Ombudsman,

I kindly remind you about this complain concerning non-disclosure of documents related to greenwashing. Please let me know what progress and next step is. If possible please advise a deadline for expected decision.

Yours sincerely,

Joachim Kattrup

Dear Euro-Ombudsman,

Thank you for respons and report onThe European Ombudsman Case: 493/2025/MAS (EBA Greenwashing Data). I hereby sent you my comments:

As I read the report The EBA's credibility as a reliable supervisory authority is in serious crisis. The core of this case is that the EBA has chosen to publish an official report with far-reaching conclusions on greenwashing, based on aggregated data, while simultaneously confirming that they neither know nor have verified the underlying basis (Dataset 2).

This, I believe constitutes maladministration and poses a serious threat to transparency in EU financial supervision for the following reasons:

1. Irresponsible Supervisory Activity
The EBA's own representatives have confirmed that Dataset 2 contains "unreported data that had not yet been assessed and verified by the EBA," and may contain "unsubstantiated claims and inaccuracies."

By publishing a report on this uncertain basis while denying public access, the EBA puts its supervisory authority at risk. The EBA's administrative fear that disclosure might be interpreted as an "endorsement" of the unsubstantiated claims is significantly outweighed by the public's right to scrutinise the factual basis for their conclusions.

2. Conflict of Interest and Procedural Flaws
The EBA's refusal ignores the obvious conflict of interest with the data provider RepRisk and is procedurally deficient:

Commercial Incentive: RepRisk has a strong commercial incentive to make the number of greenwashing incidents appear high to boost sales of its commercial subscriptions. Public access is necessary to uncover this market influence.

Failure to Consult: The EBA failed to consult RepRisk on the disclosure of the document, a procedural requirement under Regulation 1049/2001. The refusal is thus based on an incomplete and general assumption of harm.

My Conclusion
The overriding public interest in transparency and scrutiny of the analytical basis for EU supervision of greenwashing outweighs the EBA's administrative fears and RepRisk's commercial interests. The Ombudsman is requested to uphold the complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Joachim Kattrup