Dear Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME),

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Article 15 TFEU, and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I hereby request access to:

– Any internal assessments, correspondence, legal service notes, or inter-institutional communications held by DG HOME concerning the compatibility of the proposed Regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse (the ‘Chat Control’/CSAM proposal) with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In particular, I request documents addressing:
– Interactions with Articles 7 and 8 CFR (privacy and data protection),
– Impacts on Article 11 CFR (freedom of expression and information),
– Procedural safeguards under Article 47 CFR (effective remedy and fair trial).

Timeframe: 2020 to present (from preparatory consultations to the current legislative stage).

If Article 4(2) or 4(3) exceptions are invoked, I submit there is an overriding public interest in disclosure: namely, safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights in the face of broad surveillance measures. Where necessary, I request partial access under Article 4(6).

Please acknowledge receipt and process this request within the timeframe set out in Article 7 of Regulation 1049/2001. I prefer electronic access.

Yours faithfully,
Andrej Magyar

Dear Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs,

Thank you for your reply.

I note your request for a full postal address. Respectfully, I submit that this requirement is not proportionate, given that Article 6(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 explicitly provides that access applications may be made “in any written form, including electronic form.”

I have submitted my request through the AskTheEU.org platform, which provides a valid written and verifiable electronic channel. In practice, institutions overwhelmingly deliver decisions and documents electronically, including in previous 1049 cases.

In line with the GDPR principle of data minimisation (Art. 5(1)(c)), I request that my application be processed as a purely electronic request. Should you nonetheless insist on a postal address, I would provide it only under protest, while kindly requesting that all correspondence and document disclosure continue to take place electronically.

I look forward to your confirmation that the request is admissible on this basis and will be processed within the timeframe set by Article 7 of Regulation 1049/2001.

Yours faithfully,
Andrej Magyar

Dear Migration and Home Affairs,

Thank you for your message regarding my request for access to documents.

I note that you have reiterated the requirement of a postal address. I respectfully recall that:
1) Under Article 6(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, applications may be made in any written form, including electronic. No provision requires the disclosure of a postal address.
2) You have confirmed that all correspondence and documents will be transmitted electronically. This demonstrates that a postal address is not operationally necessary for the handling of my request.
3) Forcing the collection of a postal address in an electronic-only exchange exceeds the principle of data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and appears disproportionate.

Please note that the entire exchange on this matter has been submitted as evidence in a complaint to the European Ombudsman (complaint no. 202502596, lodged 9 September 2025 at 13:19 CEST).

I therefore kindly ask you to clarify:
– Do you still insist that a postal address is required before processing my request?
– Or will you proceed to handle it on the basis of my electronic submission, in line with Regulation 1049/2001?

I remain at your disposal for further clarification.

Yours faithfully,
Andrej Magyar

Dear Access to documents team,

Thank you for your reply of 10 September 2025.

In order to avoid further delay to the processing of my request, I hereby provide my postal address as requested:

Zvolenská 1177/4
821 09 Bratislava, Slovakia

However, I must emphasise that this disclosure is made strictly under protest. I maintain that:
1) Article 6(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 permits applications to be submitted in any written form, including electronic, without requiring disclosure of a postal address.
2) You have already confirmed that all correspondence and documents will be transmitted electronically, which demonstrates that a postal address is not operationally necessary.
3) Forcing disclosure of a postal address in an electronic-only exchange raises concerns under the principle of data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and appears disproportionate.

Accordingly, I note that this request — and the requirement imposed — now forms part of the evidence in an ongoing complaint before the European Ombudsman (case 2596/2025/SB, lodged on 9 September 2025).

I kindly ask that my request be processed without further delay.

Yours sincerely,
Andrej Magyar

Dear Migration and Home Affairs,

I hereby submit this confirmatory application, under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, requesting a review DG HOME’s decision of 7 November 2025, which:
- fully discloses a portion of the documents
- partially discloses a portion of the documents
- refuses access to a portion of documents requested in my initial application of 8 September 2025.
This confirmatory request is submitted within the 15-working-day deadline following receipt of the contested decision.

1. UNLAWFUL PROCEDURAL HANDLING AT THE INITIAL STAGE
The initial request was subject to several procedural irregularities that cumulatively render the DG HOME decision unlawful:
1.1 Unjustified identity/home-address requirement
DG HOME demanded my home address twice, despite:
- Regulation 1049/2001 containing no such requirement,
- EDPS/EDPB guidance on data minimisation under Regulation (EU) 2018/1725,
- established practice across other EU institutions (EDPS, EDPB, BEREC, EDA, Parliament, Council)
which processed FOIs without any address requirement.

The Commission’s insistence was disproportionate, lacked legal basis, and constituted a barrier to exercising the right of access.
This disproportionate identity demand formed the first layer of obstruction.

1.2. Breach of the Article 7(1) and 7(3) time limits
DG HOME:
- extended the deadline by 15 working days (Article 7(3)),
- but subsequently breached even this extended deadline,
- delivering the refusal after more than 40 working days,
- well beyond the maximum limit of 30 working days permitted by the Regulation.

This constitutes a clear procedural breach, and in accordance with Article 7(4), the request should already be treated as having been implicitly refused, triggering the right to a confirmatory application even before the late refusal letter was issued.

2. SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL ERRORS IN DG HOME'S REFUSAL
The refusal letter contains multiple substantive contradictions, legal inaccuracies, and misapplications of Regulation 1049/2001 and relevant case law.

2.1. Incorrect assertion that fundamental rights are a “general consideration”
DG HOME stated that:
“fundamental rights are of a general nature and do not outweigh the exception invoked.”

This statement is legally incorrect, contradicts CJEU case-law, and is incompatible with:
- Articles 7, 8, 11 and 52 CFR,
- the proportionality doctrine,
- the “essence of the right” standard,
- and institutional analyses already published.

Most importantly, it contradicts three authoritative EU bodies:
EDPS: “Scanning of interpersonal communications is always illegal under the Charter and touches the essence of Articles 7 and 8.” (EDPS Document 1 - Possible Written Questions)
EDPB: "High-risk, fundamental-rights-impacting measures require transparency and deep scrutiny." (Letter to applicant 2025-15)
EPRS: "Device-side scanning and detection of new content constitute generalised and indiscriminate surveillance, incompatible with the Charter." (EPRS STU(2023)740248)

DG HOME’s fundamental-rights assessment is objectively incorrect and contradicts the Union’s own expert bodies.

2.2. Misapplication of Article 4(2) and 4(3) exemptions
DG HOME invoked:
- decision-making protection (Article 4(3)), and
- legal advice (Article 4(2))
but failed to demonstrate:
- specific, actual, and reasonably foreseeable harm (In’t Veld, T-529/09),
- necessity of non-disclosure (CJEU, Sweden v MyTravel, C-506/08 P),
- or proportionate reasoning (Reg. 1049, Recital 11).

DG HOME also relied on Herbert Smith Freehills LLP v Commission (T-755/14) in a manner inconsistent with the case holding.
The refusal is not legally reasoned.

2.3. Incorrect claim that the proposal is at a “preliminary stage”
DG HOME’s refusal asserts that COM(2022)209 is at an “early stage” of deliberation.
This is factually and legally untrue.

By the date of refusal:
- Council negotiations had been ongoing for 18 months,
- several Presidencies failed to reach agreement,
- Parliament committees had debated the file,
- EDPS, EDPB, and EPRS had issued analyses,
- Member States had expressed positions,
- technical meetings and drafting rounds had occurred.

This is objectively not an early stage, making the Article 4(3) justification invalid.

3. CONTRADICTIONS WITH INTER-INSTITUTIONAL EVIDENCE
DG HOME’s refusal is in direct contradiction with:
- EDPS legal analysis,
- EDPB preparatory documents,
- EPRS proportionality study,
- Council and Parliament admissions of “no documents held” on ICC compliance,
- EDA and BEREC “no sectoral analysis held,”
- ECB and ECDC complete silence.

This builds a clear picture:
The Commission’s own fundamental-rights assessment is inconsistent with every other relevant institutional assessment in the Union.
This inconsistency is itself a demonstration of the overriding public interest in disclosure.

4. OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSURE
DG HOME dismissed the overriding public interest by asserting that:
“fundamental rights are of a general nature.”

This is legally untenable.

The overriding public interest is grounded in:
- the essence of Articles 7 and 8 CFR,
- protection against generalised surveillance,
- transparency in fundamental-rights-impacting proposals,
- institutional consistency,
- and democratic oversight.

The public interest here is specific, concrete, and compelling.

5. REQUEST
In light of the procedural breaches, substantive errors, and contradictions above, I request that:
5.1 DG HOME's refusal of 7 November 2025 be annulled
and
5.2. Grant full or at minimum partial access to the requested documents with redactions strictly limited to what is necessary under Article 4.

Furthermore:
5.3 Address the unexplained delay and disproportionate identity demands as violations of regulation 1049/2001 and Article 41 CFR
5.4 Provide a fully reasoned confirmatory decision demonstrating compliance with:
- the Charter,
- Regulation 1049/2001,
- proportionality,
- and CJEU case-law.

6. FINAL REMARK
The contrasting responses of other EU institutions, including the EDPS, EDPB, EDA, BEREC, Parliament, and Council, demonstrate that DG HOME’s refusal is:
- inconsistent,
- unlawful,
- procedurally irregular,
- and incompatible with the Union’s own standards.

I therefore respectfully request that the DG HOME conducts a full and lawful reassessment.

A full history of my request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.asktheeu.org/request/csam_pr...

Yours faithfully,
Andrej Magyar