Dear readers,

We return with a fresh edition of the Secrecy Tracker - your regular update on topics EU institutions prefer to hide.

I am Nikolaj Nielsen, a journalist at EUobserver who has long battled to obtain EU documents. This newsletter was prepared with support from EUobserver's Elena Sanchez Nicolas, Alexander Fanta from Follow the Money, and Pascal Hansens from Investigate Europe.

Yet this introduction serves less as a complaint about the European Commission's weak accountability record than as a caution on a troubling trend: a powerful body appears to let political ties decide whether it releases even basic information it holds.

In public statements the commission presents itself as the top donor of external aid to Palestinians, with more than €1bn pledged from 2021 to 2024, while backing a two-state solution.

But securing details on how that money was used, even for basic infrastructure projects in Gaza before the October 2023 Hamas attacks, has proved nearly impossible.

The root of that frustration traces to Michael Karnitschnig, acting director general of the commission unit handling the Middle East (DG MENA).

We do not know Austrian Karnitschnig's personal stance on Gaza or Israel. Still his superior, German commission president Ursula von der Leyen, has clearly avoided moves that would seriously irritate Israel.

Last year she floated a partial suspension of trade provisions in the EU-Israel Association Agreement, but later noted (to be confirmed after Monday's foreign affairs ministers meeting in Brussels) that such a step would need unanimous approval from all 27 member states, rendering it unworkable even though other routes would require only a qualified majority.

That procedural tactic filters down to her staff and likely shapes their choices on transparency for anything tied to Gaza or the West Bank.

Karnitschnig holds 17 documents, many audit reports, on EU funding for physical infrastructure projects in Gaza including water supply, stormwater management, sanitation and renewable energy.

I visited some of these projects in Gaza years ago and they genuinely improved daily life.

It is reasonable to conclude that many if not most have since been destroyed during Israel's military campaign, which has killed more than 70,000 people in the enclave. Despite reporting gaps that total likely exceeds €155m for Gaza-EU projects according to a recent EUobserver investigation.

Karnitschnig refuses to release anything publicly citing no overriding public interest - in remarks made the same day the UN human rights office flagged a genocide in Gaza.

He also claims releasing information on critical infrastructure in Gaza could undermine the bilateral relations of the European Union with Palestine.

Setting aside the usual questions that follow such claims, if Karnitschnig sat with me now I would ask him to explain how disclosing details on infrastructure already demolished can create a foreseeable security or diplomatic risk.

The argument looks even weaker since Karnitschnig points to public URLs describing each project its location and purpose. One sought to help treat water in Khan Younis a city in the southern Gaza Strip. It has been erased from the map after the Israeli ground invasion in 2023.

The only plausible explanation is politics. That marks a dangerous precedent for an EU institution that likes to call itself a champion of democratic principles and impartiality.

EU ombudswoman challenges EU top court over transparency shortfalls

The Court of Justice of the European Union is not an institution known for transparency. It serves as an observer of the inter-institutional ethics body not a full member.

It falls outside regulation 1049/2001 on public access to documents has no transparency register and follows its own rules. MEPs cannot submit parliamentary questions on judicial documents or administrative matters.

This prompted us after months of research to publish with Investigate Europe on 30 June an investigation alongside Follow The Money EUobserver and four other national media outlets showing that around 40 percent of court members held financial interests in private sector companies including Total Airbus and AstraZeneca.

In dozens of cases we identified a close link if not a potential apparent conflict of interest between a judge or advocate general their financial interests and the case at hand.

We also uncovered a paradox in the court's transparency system: declarations of interests remain public while current. Once updated prior versions become classified as judicial documents and vanish from public view.

The EU ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho opened an inquiry into the EU top court's refusal to grant public access to past declarations of interest filed by its judges and advocates general. She questioned why such declarations should be treated as fully exempt judicial documents noting that the court itself had previously published them proactively on its website so they had already entered the public domain. Compared with other EU institutions whose declarations fall under public access rules Anjinho argued the court must justify why its members declarations once public should now be shielded.

The investigation has already produced results: more than 30 declarations of interests were updated by judges and advocates general after our requests. The president of the General Court Marc van der Woude confirmed plans to strengthen the system of declaring and monitoring interests including through AI tools. In addition a parliamentary question was submitted to the Council to clarify safeguards when appointing an EU court member.

Pushback against Germany's plans to limit transparency law

The German coalition government of Conservatives and Social Democrats faces strong resistance from journalists and civil society against plans first revealed in July to sharply restrict the country's transparency legislation.

Informationsfreiheitsgesetz Germany's 20-year-old freedom of information law was never robust to begin with. Users face administrative fees up to €500 and authorities often take months to answer requests.

Yet the coalition presented a political agreement that would largely neuter the law as a tool for journalists.

Under the draft plans future applicants must be German legal residents able to show a legitimate interest in the information sought. Names of all officials shall be redacted from documents for protection and any information tied to critical infrastructure counter-espionage the fight against terrorism or scientific research shall receive extra protection from disclosure. Fees shall also rise to cover administrative costs which could easily reach thousands of euros per request.

These changes amount to the abolition of the freedom of information in place for 20 years said Louisa Specht-Riemenschneider the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information an official watchdog. Arne Semsrott of the transparency NGO FragDenStaat called the plans the most serious attack on government transparency in the history of the Federal Republic. Journalists press freedom advocates and opposition parties joined in defending the existing law.

Following the pushback social democratic MPs in the German parliament signaled opposition to the changes. There must be no reduction in the existing rights to information for citizens the press and civil society a section of the party group in the Bundestag stated publicly. An online petition against the plan has already gathered more than 400,000 signatures.

So far the government shows no sign of backing down. The reform once presented to parliament is expected to become a messy political fight with much at stake for the German press and civil society.

EU ombudswoman investigates von der Leyen texts - again

The EU ombudswoman has opened a new inquiry into the texting habits of EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. This time the probe will examine whether the commission mishandled Follow the Money's access request for messages from a group chat between von der Leyen and leaders including France's Emmanuel Macron the UK's Keir Starmer and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.

The existence of the group chat called Washington Group and allegedly used by around 35 world leaders to discuss how to handle the whims of US president Donald Trump was first revealed by Politico in January.

The commission denied the request citing the need to protect the EU's external relations but refused to state whether it kept the texts. A prior inquiry also following a complaint by Follow the Money criticized the commission for auto-deleting a message from Macron to von der Leyen about the Mercosur trade deal. The ombudswoman told the commission it needs to keep for a reasonable period all text and instant messages exchanged between heads of state or government or ministers and members of the commission.

More transparency on beneficial ownership across the EU

The Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a landmark ruling in May clarifying that financial transparency over beneficial ownership information showing who ultimately owns or controls a company or asset is compatible with the EU. This information is key in the fight against corruption and money laundering.

The dispute dates back to 2022 when the CJEU struck down a provision of the EU's anti-money laundering directive that required beneficial ownership registers to be fully open to the general public. At that time the top court found unlimited public access created a disproportionate interference with privacy and data protection rights.

Following that decision several EU member states restricted access to their beneficial ownership databases hindering the work of investigative journalists civil society organisations researchers and others who use ownership data to expose corruption hidden assets shell companies and sanctions evasion.

The 2025 ruling establishes a middle ground: unrestricted public access is not allowed but access based on a demonstrated legitimate interest is legally valid.

The case covered Italy's use of the fiduciary mandate. Under this arrangement a trust company manages assets on behalf of a beneficiary without formally becoming the legal owner. Several Italian fiduciary companies argued that because ownership was never transferred these arrangements should not be treated like trusts under EU transparency rules.

But the EU's top court rejected this argument. The court found that fiduciary mandates create an interposition effect allowing individuals to conceal their control over assets behind another legal entity. As a result these structures must face the same transparency requirements as comparable trust arrangements.

The decision comes as the EU implements its updated anti-money laundering rules providing clarity for authorities on reopening beneficial ownership registers while maintaining privacy safeguards.

EU ombudswoman challenges EU top court over transparency shortfalls

Pushback against Germany's plans to limit transparency law

EU ombudswoman investigates von der Leyen texts - again

More transparency on beneficial ownership across the EU

70 percent of Brussels reporters say EU institutions access-to-documents practices limit their work