A refusal is not the end of an EU access-to-documents request — by design, it is the halfway point. Regulation 1049/2001, the law governing public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, builds in a mandatory second stage called the confirmatory application: an internal appeal that the institution must decide before any outside body can be asked to intervene. Understanding how it works is the difference between a request that dies quietly and one that keeps its legal options open. The full text of the regulation is available on EUR-Lex.
The two-stage design
The first stage is the initial application. The institution has 15 working days to grant access, refuse it with reasons, or release the documents in part. In exceptional cases — a very long document, a very large number of documents — it may extend that period by a further 15 working days, provided it says so in advance and explains why.
If the answer is a refusal, a partial refusal, or silence past the deadline, the applicant may file a confirmatory application: a written request asking the institution to reconsider its position. The applicant has 15 working days from receiving the refusal, or from the expiry of the unanswered deadline, to do so. Nothing more formal than a letter or email to the institution is required, but the confirmatory stage is not optional decoration — under the regulation's scheme, it is the reply to the confirmatory application, not the initial refusal, that constitutes the institution's final position and can be taken further.
Who reviews it, and what to argue
The point of the second stage is a fresh pair of eyes at a higher level. At the Commission, for instance, initial applications are answered by the department holding the documents, while confirmatory applications are reviewed centrally by the Secretariat-General. The review is a full reconsideration, not a rubber stamp: institutions do reverse or soften initial refusals at this stage, often by granting partial access.
A confirmatory application works best when it engages the stated grounds of refusal. The regulation's exceptions — protection of privacy, commercial interests, international relations, ongoing decision-making, among others — each have limits, and several must yield where an overriding public interest in disclosure exists. Useful arguments therefore include: that the exception invoked does not actually cover the documents; that the harm claimed is hypothetical rather than reasonably foreseeable; that an overriding public interest favours release; or that partial access, with the sensitive passages blacked out, would resolve the objection. Practical drafting guidance for both stages is collected in the guide on how to use European freedom of information.
The institution's answer — or its silence
The deadlines mirror the first stage: 15 working days, extendable once by another 15 in exceptional cases. The institution can grant access, maintain the refusal with reasons, or grant access in part. If it maintains a refusal, it must inform the applicant of the remedies available. Silence is regulated too: a failure to reply within the time limit counts as a negative reply, which means an institution cannot park an awkward request indefinitely — the expired deadline itself opens the way to the next stage.
After the confirmatory stage: Ombudsman or Court
Once the confirmatory application has been refused, expressly or by silence, two routes open. The first is a complaint to the European Ombudsman, which is free, requires no lawyer, and examines whether the institution's handling amounted to maladministration; its findings and recommendations carry real institutional weight but are not legally binding. The second is an action for annulment before the EU General Court, which must be brought within the time limit for challenging EU acts — roughly two months — and can end in a binding judgment striking down the refusal, at the cost of a slower and more demanding procedure. The two routes serve different needs, and many requesters try the Ombudsman first, keeping the court in reserve for refusals that matter enough to litigate.