Dear Secretariat General of the European Commission,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting all text messages exchanged by President Ursula von der Leyen and other leaders since 1 January 2026 within the Washington Group chat. The existence of the group chat was reported by Politico in this article:
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-t...

I kindly ask to preserve all text messages from said group chat from automatic deletion. I also ask to provide me with a list of all messages falling within the scope of my request regardless of whether I am given access to them or not.

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue Auguste Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles
Belgium

Dear Secretary-General,

I am submitting this confirmatory application under Article 7(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 concerning my request for access to documents registered under reference EASE 2026/0369 and the initial reply of 5 March 2026 signed by the Deputy Secretary-General.​

In my initial application, I requested access to all text messages exchanged by President Ursula von der Leyen and other leaders since 1 January 2026 within the “Washington Group” chat. The Commission’s reply refuses access in blanket terms to “any such exchange” on the basis of Article 4(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, without identifying the documents concerned, without carrying out (or at least demonstrating) a specific and individual assessment of each document, and without explaining how disclosure of the requested material would concretely and specifically undermine the protected interests relied upon.​​

I respectfully request that the Commission review this position for the reasons set out below.

1. Need to identify documents and define the scope

Regulation 1049/2001 requires the institution to determine whether it holds documents falling within the scope of a request and, if so, to identify them. In its reply, the Commission does not indicate whether it has searched for, located and identified any text messages falling within the scope of my request, nor does it provide a list or description of such documents (e.g. date, sender/recipient, and general subject).​
Even where an institution relies on a general presumption, EU case law makes clear that this does not exempt it from indicating which documents it considers to be covered by the presumption and from providing a list of those documents, including at least their date, nature and author. The initial reply does not provide such a list and instead appears to rely on an abstract description of a category of possible “exchanges” between the President and other leaders.​​

I therefore ask the Commission, at confirmatory stage:
- To carry out an adequate search for documents (text messages) falling within the scope of my request;

- To identify the documents located and provide a list of the documents in scope, indicating at least the date, participants, and a short description of their subject, without prejudice to the possibility of redacting sensitive content.

2. Requirement of a specific and individual assessment

Under Regulation 1049/2001, refusal of access is the exception and transparency the rule, and exceptions must be interpreted and applied strictly. As confirmed consistently in the case law, the institution is, as a rule, obliged to carry out a specific and individual examination of each document requested, so as to determine whether one of the exceptions under Article 4 is applicable, and whether partial access can be granted.

The Court of Justice has accepted that general presumptions may, in limited circumstances, justify not carrying out an individual examination of every single document, but only where the institution has first carried out a specific and individual assessment of the category in question and established a specific, actual and reasonably foreseeable risk that disclosure would undermine the protected interest. Even then, the institution must still:​
Identify the documents in scope and indicate which documents are covered by the presumption;​

Consider whether the presumption is rebutted for certain documents and whether partial access is possible.

The initial reply does not show that the Commission has made such a specific and individual assessment, neither at the level of each document nor even at the level of a defined category of documents. Instead, it appears to treat all possible “exchanges” between the President and other leaders as automatically and wholly covered by Article 4(1), without further analysis. This approach is incompatible with the requirement of strict interpretation of exceptions and the obligation to examine whether at least partial access could be granted, for instance by redacting content that may genuinely fall within Article 4(1).​

I therefore request that, at the confirmatory stage, the Secretariat-General ensures that a specific and individual examination is carried out, at least at the level of clearly defined categories of identified documents, and that the outcome of this examination is explained in the confirmatory decision.

3. Blanket invocation of Article 4(1) without concrete harm analysis

The initial reply invokes Article 4(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 and asserts, in general terms, that disclosure “would undermine international relations, defence and military matters, the financial, economic and monetary policy of the Union and public security.” However, it does not explain, in a concrete and specific manner, how disclosure of each document (or of identifiable categories of documents) would actually and foreseeably harm those interests.​
EU courts have repeatedly held that it is not sufficient for an institution to rely on the mere fact that documents relate to a given sensitive field or procedure; it must demonstrate that disclosure would specifically and reasonably foreseeably undermine the protected interest. Even for particularly sensitive exceptions, the institution must provide an adequate statement of reasons showing how the exception applies to the documents at issue.

In this case:
The decision does not distinguish between different types of messages, different interlocutors, or different subject matters;​​

It does not explain why, for example, messages of a more procedural, logistical or non‑substantive nature would “undermine” international relations or public security;

It does not address the possibility that certain parts of the messages may be disclosable while others could be redacted.​

In the absence of such a concrete harm analysis, the refusal amounts to a blanket presumption that any written exchange between the President and other leaders is, by definition, exempt from disclosure in its entirety. This is incompatible with the requirement of strict interpretation of Article 4(1) and with the principle that the right of access must be given the widest possible effect.​

I therefore request that the confirmatory decision:
Provides a concrete demonstration of how disclosure of each document or well-defined category of documents would specifically and reasonably foreseeably undermine the interests protected by Article 4(1);

Distinguishes, where appropriate, between different parts of documents and grants at least partial access under Article 4(6), where only some content is genuinely sensitive.​

4. Partial access and proportionality

Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides that if an exception applies to only part of a document, the remaining parts shall be released. The Commission’s own guidance confirms that the system of exceptions does not automatically justify refusing access to an entire document and that partial access should be granted where possible.​

The initial reply does not indicate that the possibility of partial access was considered at all. It does not, for example, assess whether certain elements of the requested messages (such as dates, subject lines, non‑sensitive parts of the text, or messages relating to non‑sensitive issues) could be disclosed, while redacting operationally sensitive content.​

I therefore ask that the confirmatory decision explicitly considers and explains whether partial access can be granted to each document or category of documents identified, with appropriate redactions limited to those elements whose disclosure would genuinely and specifically harm the protected interests.

5. Relief sought

In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Commission, upon confirmatory review:

- Acknowledge the existence of the requested documents, identify them and provide a list of the documents in scope.​​

- Carry out and demonstrate a specific and individual assessment of each document, or at least clearly defined categories of documents, in line with Regulation 1049/2001 and the case law.

- Reconsider the blanket refusal and grant full or, at the very least, partial access to the requested messages, applying Article 4(1) only where a specific, actual and reasonably foreseeable harm is demonstrated, and applying Article 4(6) to release non‑sensitive parts.

- Clarify whether the text messages in question are auto-deleted or manually deleted after a certain period, as appears to happen with other text messages sent and received by the president.

- Clarify whether messages exchanged within the Washington Group chat are duly registered and retained by the Commission.

- Provide an adequately reasoned confirmatory decision that enables judicial review, should that become necessary.

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue Auguste Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles