Dear Structural Reform Support,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:

All documents related to the project funded by the Technical Support Instrument (TSI), in partnership with the Child Protection Section of UNICEF’s Office for Europe and Central Asia, which will develop an evidence-based, best practice framework and roadmap to make sure that the child’s best interests are the paramount consideration at all stages of the adoption process.

The project is part of a wider European initiative in which Ireland, Croatia, the Czech Republic and Portugal will strengthen child protection systems and uphold children’s rights across the region.

Please also provide all data related to the wider European initiative.

Yours faithfully,

Arun Dohle
Against Child Trafficking
Keizersgracht 482
1017EG Amsterdam

Dear Structural Reform Support,

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 'TSI contract - adoption'.

Reference: Commission's Reply Ref. Ares(2025)6455785, dated 7 August 2025

Subject: Confirmatory Application Requesting Review of Partial Refusal of Access to Documents Related to EU-UNICEF Contribution Agreement REFORM/IM/2024/03 ("Strengthening Child Rights and Protection in Czech Republic, Croatia, Ireland, and Portugal")

Dear Secretariat-General,

Pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council, and Commission documents, I hereby submit this confirmatory application requesting a review of the European Commission's position in its reply of 8 July 2025 (Ref. Ares(2025)3343). In that reply, the Commission granted only partial access to the contribution agreement (document 1) with extensive redactions and removals, and fully refused access to the inception report (document 2: "Final Inception report on Empowering the Child Protection System in Portugal Towards Deinstitutionalised Approaches," dated 12 June 2025).I respectfully request that the Commission reconsider its decision and grant full access to the withheld documents or parts thereof, or at minimum, provide greater partial access. This application is grounded in the principles of transparency, proportionality, and the overriding public interest in disclosure, particularly given suspicions of "scope creep" in the use of the Technical Support Instrument (TSI) for activities potentially exceeding its legal mandate.

1. Recap of the Initial Request and Commission's Reply

My initial request sought access to documents related to the EU-UNICEF contribution agreement REFORM/IM/2024/03, a 24-month multi-donor action signed on 26 November 2024, financed under Regulation (EU) 2021/240 (TSI). The project focuses on "strengthening child rights and protection" in four Member States, with an emphasis on deinstitutionalization in Portugal, and is ongoing until November 2026.

The Commission's reply:
- Provided a heavily redacted version of document 1, including removals of Annex I (Description of the Action), budget/financing details (Articles 3-4, Annex III), specific conditions (Article 7), and pages 7-10.
- Denied full access to document 2 in its entirety.
- Invoked exceptions under:Article 4(1)(a), third indent (protection of international relations).
Article 4(1)(a), fourth indent (protection of financial, monetary, or economic policy).
Article 4(3), first subparagraph (protection of the decision-making process).
Article 4(1)(b) (protection of privacy and integrity of the individual).
Article 4(2), first indent (protection of commercial interests, implied).
- Concluded no overriding public interest in disclosure.

2. Grounds for Review: Misapplication of Exceptions and Overriding Public Interest

I challenge the Commission's application of the exceptions as overly broad, disproportionate, and not sufficiently justified. The redactions and refusals appear to obscure the project's true scope, which—based on contextual evidence—may include promotion of intercountry adoption under the 1993 Hague Adoption Convention, despite the project's framing as "child rights and protection." This raises concerns of scope creep beyond TSI's mandate, warranting greater transparency.

a. Misapplication of Article 4(1)(a), Third Indent (International Relations)

The Commission claims disclosure would harm relations with UNICEF and Member States. However, child rights reforms are not inherently "sensitive" like diplomatic negotiations; they involve public policy funded by EU taxpayers. The withheld parts (e.g., Annex I) likely describe national systems' shortcomings, but withholding them prevents public scrutiny without concrete evidence of harm. Courts emphasize narrow interpretation of this exception (e.g., Case T-464/16, ClientEarth v Commission), granting institutions discretion only where "manifest error" is absent. Here, the blanket redactions lack specificity and fail proportionality—partial access (e.g., anonymized descriptions) could suffice.

Moreover, if the project promotes adoption as a deinstitutionalization tool, this could strain relations by ignoring historical scandals (e.g., child trafficking in Eastern Europe). Transparency would enhance, not undermine, accountability.

b. Misapplication of Article 4(1)(a), Fourth Indent (Financial, Monetary, or Economic Policy)

The link to "financial policy" is tenuous. TSI supports reforms for economic resilience, but child protection/adoption is not core monetary policy. Redacting budgets (e.g., EU contribution, UNICEF's 7% remuneration) fuels suspicion of opacity, especially in a multi-donor action. The Commission must demonstrate specific risks (Case C-350/12 P, Council v In 't Veld), which it has not. Disclosure of financial details is standard for EU-funded projects to ensure value-for-money.

c. Misapplication of Article 4(3), First Subparagraph (Decision-Making Process)The project is ongoing, but the inception report (document 2) is a planning tool, not an internal draft decision. Full refusal ignores partial access options, violating proportionality. The Commission must show "serious" undermining (e.g., via concrete examples), but relies on general assertions. Given the project's 24-month duration, withholding until 2026 excessively delays oversight.

d. Misapplication of Article 4(1)(b) (Privacy)Personal data redactions are legitimate, but over-applied to justify removing entire annexes. Anonymization could address this without full refusal.

e. Overriding Public Interest in Disclosure

The Commission dismissed this without adequate analysis, contrary to case law requiring balancing (e.g., Case T-796/16, Access Info Europe v Commission). A compelling public interest exists:

- Scope Creep in TSI Mandate: TSI (Regulation (EU) 2021/240) is for structural reforms enhancing economic cohesion, not harmonizing civil/family law (national competence under Article 81 TFEU). Adoption is a civil procedure creating permanent ties, not child protection (per 2004 Opinion of the Independent Panel of EU Family Law Experts: "Adoption is a civil law procedure and should not be part of child protection systems"). If redacted parts promote the Hague Convention or adoption as "protection," this exceeds TSI scope, blurring lines and risking child commodification.

- 20-Year Adoption Scandals: EU Member States have faced intercountry adoption abuses (e.g., Dutch 2021 suspension due to trafficking; French mishandling 1993-2023; Romanian moratorium). Disclosure is vital to prevent recurrence and ensure compliance with CRC Articles 9 and 21 (family preservation priority).

- Public Accountability: EU funds are involved; opacity perpetuates distrust amid declining adoptions (72% drop since 2005) and expert critiques (e.g., Claire Fenton-Glynn on adoption without consent).

- Human Rights: Full access would allow scrutiny of whether the project aligns with EU Charter rights (e.g., Article 24 on child best interests).

This interest outweighs claimed harms, especially as the project addresses CRC recommendations—public documents by nature.

3. Requested OutcomeI request:

- Full access to the withheld parts of document 1 (e.g., Annex I, budget details) and document 2, or maximum partial access with justifications for any remaining redactions.
- Expedited review, given the ongoing project and public interest.
- Confirmation that disclosure will not prejudice legitimate interests, or evidence thereof.

If refused, I may escalate to the European Ombudsman and/or OLAF for maladministration and potential fund misuse.

I await your response within 15 working days (extendable to 30).

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

Yours faithfully,

Arun Dohle
Against Child Trafficking

Dear SG ACCES DOCUMENTS,

We have not received Adopted decision: C(2026)4875.

Please send it to this ASK the EU address.

Yours sincerely,

Arun Dohle