Dear Directorate-General Connect,

Pursuant to Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, I am writing to request access to documents concerning the assessment of the compliance of Hungary’s legislation with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) such as:

- Any meeting minutes or other documents used or produced during meetings that concern the issue;
- Correspondence (including emails) and any other documents exchanged with the Hungarian government, Hungarian institutions, or other stakeholders regarding this issue;
- Internal analyses
- Internal presentations
- The assessment itself, in any form, including draft versions.

I acknowledge that some of the documents requested may fall under the scope of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001. However, if any part of the request does fall under that exception, I would like to highlight that there is a clear overriding public interest in disclosure of the documents concerned. The great public interest of this Freedom of Information request is highlighted by more than 46 Civil Society Organisations stressing the importance of action from the Commission on this matter [1]. This request is in regard to the public comments by Commission spokesperson Regnier that the Commission is ‘assessing’ whether current Hungarian legislation complies with the EU AI Act.

The matter of concern is Hungary’s new amendment package, which allows the use of prohibited real-time biometric identification technologies to identify perpetrators of infractions. This is in violation of Article 5 of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. This case sets a worrying precedent, highlighting the urgent need to uphold fundamental rights within the European Union. The lack of transparency surrounding enforcement of the AI Act in this case could set a troubling precedent, potentially encouraging similar legislation in other Member States.

I would like to point out that multiple Freedom of Information requests filed with Hungarian institutions have failed to yield relevant information. As such, public access to documents held by the Commission is even more crucial in ensuring democratic oversight and accountability.

Please note I'm requesting access only to anonymised communications and documents without personally identifiable information.

I kindly request a response within the time limits set by Regulation 1049/2001 and would appreciate receiving the documents in electronic form. Should you require any clarification or have questions concerning this request, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully,

Blue Duangdjai Tiyavorabun
Rue Belliard 12
1040 Brussels
Belgium

[1]https://edri.org/our-work/open-letter-th...

Dear DG JUST,

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 'Documents concerning the assessment of the compliance of Hungary’s legislation with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act)', EASE 2025/3614.

Pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, I ask the Commission to review the decision to grant no access to the document in question, taking into consideration the following:
1. The application of Article 4(6) and 4(3) was not sufficiently argued
2. The application of Article 4(2) was not sufficiently argued
3. Overriding public interest
4. The Union institutions must conduct their work as openly as possible

1) The application of Article 4(6) and 4(3) was not sufficiently argued

You state that : "We have considered whether partial access could be granted to the documents requested. However, it is our belief that the disclosure of redacted versions of the documents requested may lead to speculations and unwarranted conclusions. It would also generate an unwarranted pressure on the Commission."
I argue that the aspect of unwarranted external pressure has not been sufficiently substantiated. It is crucial to point out that in line with EU law and CJEU juridsprudence any exceptions in access to documents must be interpreted strictly and specifically. As the Ombudsperson decision (OI/4/2023/MIK) lays out, citing the courts, “the risk of external pressure that would substantially affect the final decision must be established with certainty by means of “tangible evidence”.[1] EU law makers must be able to deal with external pressure which does not go “beyond what could be expected from the public” in normal circumstances.[2]”. In refusing my request, the commission did not present any evidence that would demonstrate that the public pressure does not go beyond reasonable expectations.
I also would like to point out that the argument that the release of partial documents would lead to speculations and unwarranted conclusions is also insufficient in light of the Ombudsperson decision (OI/4/2023/MIK) which points out that “Public opinion is perfectly capable of understanding that the author of a [preliminary document] is likely to amend its content subsequently”.[3] Rather, a public debate on non-final documents should be welcomed.[4]“ This is especially pertinent if the documents in question – as indicated in the Commission’s response to my request - only include questions to the Hungarian government and the government’s response, without the Commission’s actual assessment.
It is essential that the European Commission is transparent, in the public interest, about how it consults Member States and other stakeholders when it tries to inform its policy-making.

2) The application of Article 4(2) was not sufficiently argued

You state that: “Furthermore, these documents form part of the Commission’s ongoing work aimed at determining the next steps for action. As no final decision has been taken, releasing these documents now would compromise the integrity of the Commission’s decision-making process”
You have not specifically laid out how disclosure of these documents would cause a reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical harm to one of the protected interests under Article 4(2). Nor have you properly considered the public interest which is laid out under point 3. The Ombudsperson decision (OI/4/2023/MIK) states that the argument of “refusing public access in order to protect ongoing decision-making processes” constitutes a generic argument and “if an EU institution cannot provide any concrete evidence of a specific, actual and reasonably foreseeable risk to the interests protected by the invoked exception(s), the requested documents must be disclosed.”

3) Overriding public interest

There is a compelling and overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents and their contents for several important reasons.
The AI Act is a landmark law by the European Union, aiming to champion the rights respecting use of AI. This is the first test case of a breach of the AI Act and the enforcement of one of its core provisions. As such, it constitutes a critical moment to demonstrate the practical effectiveness of this landmark regulatory framework. Transparency in this context will reinforce public trust in the EU’s ability to hold actors accountable under the AI Act and uphold fundamental rights in the face of emerging technological risks.
Further, the AI Act explicitly recognises the use of Real Time Biometric Identification (RBI) techniques as unacceptable use of AI under Article 5 of the Act. It explicitly states that the use of such systems is “intrusive to the rights and freedoms of the concerned persons, to the extent that [for a large part of the population] it may [...] evoke a feeling of constant surveillance and indirectly dissuade the exercise of the freedom of assembly and other fundamental rights” [5]. Disclosing documents related to the use and oversight of these techniques is therefore crucial to safeguard civil liberties and allow for proper scrutiny of practices that may undermine these essential rights . This is particularly important for public interest because as of today Hungary has still not appointed the national supervisory authority that would be in charge of ensuring compliance with the AI Act, including Article 5. Since oversight and enforcement is not effective on the national level, the European Commission is currently the only entity empowered to ensure accountability for harmful uses of AI. Enabling access to documents which include the exchange between the Hungarian government and the Commission is therefore crucial for safeguarding democratic accountability in the Commission’s role as the guardian of the Treaties. This role must be subject to public scrutiny, especially when deciding whether or not to pursue infringement procedures.
This case also takes on an additional layer of significance in light of ongoing concerns about the Hungarian authorities’ broader conduct. The European Parliament has initiated the Article 7(1) TEU procedure on the grounds of breaching Article 2 of the TEU [6], which enshrines the foundational values of the EU, including respect for the rule of law, democracy, and human rights. This has also been strengthened by the opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU who states that the Court should find a stand-alone infringement of Article 2 TEU by Hungary [7]. This is further supported by numerous ongoing infringement procedures of the Commission against the Hungarian government [8]. In sum this shows, that the Hungarian authorities have undermined the rule of law, freedom of the press, fundamental rights consistently.
Taken together, these facts highlight a worrying and persistent decline in the rule of law, press freedom, and fundamental rights under the Hungarian authorities. The deployment of RBI by these authorities in this context represents a particularly dangerous escalation, as it presents an increased risk of abuse and the potential repression of political dissent and civil society.
To conclude, the use of RBI technology in breach of core provisions of the AI Act, especially by authorities in a member state already under scrutiny for serious rule of law violations, is a matter of profound public interest. Disclosure of these documents is crucial for ensuring transparency, safeguarding fundamental rights, and strengthening the enforcement of EU values and legal standards.

4. The Union institutions must conduct their work as openly as possible

Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states: "1. In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union's institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible."
As stated in Case C‑280/11 P, the Court lays out the “advantage” of increased openness is that it enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system.
In addition to this, in relation to the right of access to EU documents, recital 4 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 states: "The purpose of this Regulation is to give the fullest possible effect to the right of public access to documents".
Article 1 of Regulation 1049/2001 states: "The purpose of this Regulation is: (a) to define the principles, conditions and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing the right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission … documents … in such a way as to ensure the widest possible access to documents."

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

Yours faithfully,

Blue Duangdjai Tiyavorabun

[1] Case T-252/19, Pech v Council, paragraph 92.
[2] Case T-540/15, De Capitani v Parliament, paragraph 99; Case T-233/09, Access Info Europe v Council, paragraph 74.
[3] Case T-233/09, Access Info Europe v Council, paragraph 69; Case T-540/15, De Capitani v Parliament, paragraph 102.
[4] Case T‑163/21, De Capitani v Council, paragraph 79.
[5] REGULATION (EU) 2024/1689, Recital 32
[6] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/p...
[7] https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs...
[8] https://commission.europa.eu/law/applica...

Dear Communications Networks, Content and Technology,

We have reached the extended deadline for this request for documents. Could you please process my request diligently or inform me about its status please?

Thank you for you reply.

Kind regards,
Blue Duangdjai Tiyavorabun