Dear Competition,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I wish to request the WhatsApp messages exchanged Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera and Politico journalist Karl Mathiesen, quotes of which were published in this newsletter item: https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/bruss...

I wish to obtain the full exchange of messages between Ms. Ribera and Mr. Mathiesen.

In this context, I note that the fact that parts of the exchanged were publicized in a reputable media means that its existence can plausibly be assumed. Thus, I wish to point to the ruling in Stevi v Commission [p 60]. Therein, the court stated that "where the Commission can no longer rely on the presumption of veracity attaching to its declaration that it is not in possession of the requested documents, it is obliged, in accordance with the principle of transparency and the duty to act diligently which underpin the right of access to documents and require the EU administration to act with care and caution, to provide plausible explanations enabling the applicant for access – as well as the Court – to understand why the requested documents could not be found. "

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue Auguste Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles

Dear Sir or Madam,

On 8 September 2025, I submitted an application for access to documents (reference EASE 2025/4521), requesting access to the full exchange of WhatsApp text messages between Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera and journalist Karl Mathiesen (Politico).​

In the decision, signed by Deputy Secretary-General John Watson, the Commission refused access on the sole ground that it does not hold any documents corresponding to my request. The decision states, in essence, that no relevant documents were found in the Commission’s record management systems, that Executive Vice-President Ribera does not hold the requested messages, and that messages on her device have disappeared pursuant to the Commission’s IT security recommendations and Article 54 of the Detailed Rules for the application of Regulation 1049/2001.​

Pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, I hereby submit a confirmatory application and request that the Commission review its initial decision.

Failure to follow the Stevi judgment

In Stevi and The New York Times v Commission (T‑36/23), the General Court annulled a Commission decision refusing access to text messages on the ground that the institution had not provided a sufficiently clear and plausible explanation of what had happened to the requested messages.​

The Court held that the Commission cannot simply invoke the absence of documents in its systems but must explain, in a consistent and precise manner, the steps taken to search for the messages and whether they still exist, have been deleted, or are otherwise no longer in its possession, including whether any deletion was automatic or deliberate.​

The Court criticised, in particular, that the Commission had not clarified whether the text messages “were deleted and, if so, whether the deletion was done deliberately or automatically or whether the President’s mobile phone had been replaced in the meantime”, and found that such vague and assumption‑based explanations were incompatible with the Commission’s duties under Regulation 1049/2001 and the principle of good administration.​

The initial decision in my case repeats precisely the type of deficiencies censured in Stevi: it relies on generic references to internal IT security recommendations and automatic disappearance of messages, without clearly explaining whether the specific messages requested once existed, whether they were deleted, by whom, by what mechanism (automatic or manual), and at what point in time in relation to my request.​​

By failing to answer these questions, the Commission has not complied with the standard set out by the General Court, which requires concrete, verifiable and non‑contradictory information enabling the applicant and the Court to understand why the institution no longer possesses the requested messages.​

Need for precise explanations about deletion

The decision asserts that Executive Vice-President Ribera “has complied with the Commission’s information technology security recommendations for the automatic disappearance of messages, as required by Article 54 of the Detailed Rules of the Commission for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001”.​

This statement is generic and does not meet the level of precision required after Stevi. It does not state:

- whether the specific WhatsApp messages exchanged with Mr Mathiesen were deleted automatically by a technical setting, deleted manually, or removed by another technical or human intervention;​

- who performed any deletion (the Executive Vice-President herself, IT services, or another person), and under whose instructions;​

- whether any deletion occurred before or after the date of my initial application for access, and whether any steps were taken to suspend deletion or retrieve messages once an access request had been made.​

In Stevi, the Court explicitly identified such omissions as unlawful, stressing that the Commission must clarify whether requested text messages were deleted, whether deletion was voluntary or automatic, whether devices were replaced, and whether searches were carried out after the access request.​

The Commission is therefore obliged, at the confirmatory stage, to provide a concrete, case‑specific account of:

- whether the messages at issue were subject to automatic deletion settings, and if so, which settings, from when, and how they were configured on the device used;​

- whether any manual deletion was performed, by whom, and on what date;​

- whether any device change (replacement of phones or reinstallation of messaging apps) affected the availability of the messages;​

- what searches were conducted on devices, backups or corporate services after receipt of my request, including their scope, methods and results.​

Without such information, the Commission’s assertion of non‑possession remains unsubstantiated and contradicts the requirements flowing from Stevi regarding transparency, record‑keeping and the duty to provide a plausible explanation for the non-existence or non-possession of documents.​

Failure to register and retain documents

The General Court made clear in the Stevi case that whether a message was registered or not should not make a difference to the question of whether or not it can be obtained under Regulation 1049/2001. The messages in question in my view clearly relate to the “policies, activities and decisions falling within the institution's sphere of responsibility”, thus being covered by the definition of a document under Regulation 1049/2001.

Regarding the question why it was not registered, and thus retained, I believe the Commission is required to make a clear disclosure.

As regards the registration, I believe the Commission must explain why the messages were not registered. The fact that excerpts from the WhatsApp conversation were later published in a news article makes them important context for understanding these comments.

Also, in my understanding of the Working Methods of the European Commission (of 1 December 2024), an interview such as the one that took place would typically be cleared with the Vice-President’s communications adviser along pre-prepared “lines to take”. Also, the Working Methods would require the Spokesperson Service to be informed in advance. Therefore, it is clear that the messages in question required advance preparation, and that their publication in the form of an interview likely will result in follow-up action, such as questions on the same topic by other reporters, which would require “lines to take” or other internal coordination.

I note that the Commission, according to the Working Methods, makes available all “lines to take” in a database accessible to all cabinets “to ensure collegial communication on all issues at all times.” The Commission must explain whether the interview in question was derived from pre-agreed “lines to take”, and whether there was any internal follow-up on the interview in question within the Commission. This information is directly relevant to the question of whether the messages in question should have been registered and retained.

I kindly request the Commission to prepare a reply to my confirmatory application that answers the questions raised in a manner compliant with the case law.

Additionally, I ask the Commission to clarify whether it consulted with any third parties (including Mr Mathiesen) on this request.

Yours faithfully,
Alexander Fanta