Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) 14 October 2026

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

14 October 2026 ( * )

( Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Form annexed to a request for assistance sent by a national competition authority to the national competition authority of another Member State – Partial refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits – Overriding public interest )

In Case T‑205/25,

Giulio Cesare Rizza, residing in Rome (Italy), represented by M. Siragusa and G. Lodigiani, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Commission, represented by M. Burón Pérez and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents,

defendant,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of I. Gâlea, President, T. Tóth (Rapporteur) and B. Ricziová, Judges,

Registrar: T. Henze, Acting Registrar,

having regard to the written part of the procedure, in particular the order of 13 January 2026 which ordered the European Commission to produce the document entitled ‘Annex 12 – Form 12.b – Request for assistance in the collection of evidence (Article 22 Template)’, in its unredacted version, and the production of that document by the Commission on 15 January 2026,

having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by the parties within three weeks after service of notification of the close of the written part of the procedure, and having decided to rule on the action without an oral part of the procedure, pursuant to Article 106(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Giulio Cesare Rizza, seeks the annulment of Decision C(2025) 1119 final of the European Commission of 12 February 2025 partially rejecting his confirmatory application for access to documents relating to the document entitled ‘Annex 12 – Form 12.b – Request for assistance in the collection of evidence (Article 22 Template)’ (‘the document in question’) (‘the contested decision’).

Background to the dispute

2 On 27 August 2024, the applicant applied, under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), for access to the following document: ‘Text of the entire set of the standard forms attached to a standard request for assistance under Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 from a [National Competition Authority] to the [National Competition Authority] of another Member State [only the blank templates, without any data related to any particular inspection].’

3 On 17 September 2024, the Commission informed the applicant of its decision to extend the time limit for responding by 15 additional days in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, which extended the time limit to 8 October 2024.

4 On 4 October 2024, the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition replied to the request for access to documents by identifying a document, namely the document entitled ‘Annex 12 – Form 12.b – Request for assistance in the collection of evidence (Article 22 Template)’. Partial access to that document was granted.

5 On 24 October 2024, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the applicant submitted a confirmatory application requesting that the Commission reconsider its position.

6 On 12 November 2024, the Commission informed the applicant of its decision to extend the time limit for responding by 15 additional days in accordance with Article 8(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, which extended the time limit to 6 December 2024.

7 On 6 December 2024, the applicant asked the Commission whether its failure to reply to the confirmatory application should be considered as a negative reply within the meaning of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, which the Commission confirmed on 9 December 2024.

8 On 12 February 2025, the Commission adopted the contested decision by which it rejected in part the applicant’s confirmatory application. By that decision, the Commission granted him further partial access to the document referred to in paragraph 4 above, but refused to disclose that document in its entirety on the basis of the exception laid down in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits.

Forms of order sought

9 The applicant claims that the Court should:

– annul the contested decision and order the Commission to provide full access to the unredacted version of the document in question;

– in the alternative, annul the contested decision and order the Commission to provide access to a redacted version of the document in question, in which only the number of weeks indicated at pages 5 and 6 (Periods I to III) are not disclosed.

10 The Commission contends that the Court should:

– dismiss as inadmissible the applicant’s request that the Commission be ordered to grant access to the document in question;

– dismiss the rest of the action as unfounded;

– order the applicant to pay the costs.

Law

The jurisdiction of the Court

11 As preliminary point, the Commission submits that the General Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the second part of both forms of order sought by the applicant, in so far as they request the General Court to order the Commission to grant him full access to the unredacted document in question or a version in which only the number of weeks indicated at pages 5 and 6 (Periods I to III) are not disclosed.

12 In that regard, it should be noted that, in the context of the review of legality under Article 263 TFEU, the Court has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union (see judgment of 15 February 2023, Asesores Comunitarios v Commission , T‑77/22, not published, EU:T:2023:69, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).

13 It follows that the requests that the Commission be ordered to grant the applicant full access to the unredacted document in question or a version in which only the number of weeks indicated at pages 5 and 6 (Periods I to III) are not disclosed, must be rejected on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

Substance

14 In support of its action, the applicant raises, in essence, two pleas in law alleging, in respect of the first, infringement of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits and, in respect of the second, that there is no need to show the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure.

Preliminary observations

15 It should be recalled that, under Article 15(3) TFEU, any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, is to have a right of access to the documents of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, whatever their medium, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Regulation No 1049/2001 seeks, as indicated in recital 4 and Article 1 thereof, to give the public a right of access to documents of the institutions which is as wide as possible (see judgment of 14 November 2013, LPN and Finland v Commission , C‑514/11 P and C‑605/11 P, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).

16 The principle that the public should have the widest possible access to documents is nonetheless subject to certain limits based on reasons of public or private interest. Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides for a system of exceptions requiring institutions and bodies not to disclose documents in the event that that disclosure would undermine one of these interests, as is apparent from recital 11 of that regulation (see judgment of 14 November 2013, LPN and Finland v Commission , C‑514/11 P and C‑605/11 P, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).

17 Since the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 derogate from the principle that the public should have the widest possible access to documents, they must be interpreted and applied strictly (see judgments of 21 July 2011, Sweden v MyTravel and Commission , C‑506/08 P, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited, and of 3 July 2014, Council v in 't Veld , C‑350/12 P, EU:C:2014:2039, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).

18 Furthermore, it has been held that the exceptions to the right of access to documents set out, in particular, in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, cannot, where the documents covered by the request for disclosure fall within a particular area of EU law, be interpreted without taking account of the specific rules governing access to those documents (judgment of 27 February 2014, Commission v EnBW , C‑365/12 P, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 83), which are laid down in this instance by Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 487/2009 of 25 May 2009 (OJ 2009 L 148, p. 1).

19 Since Regulations No 1049/2001 and No 1/2003 do not contain provisions expressly giving one primacy over the other, it is necessary to ensure that each of the regulations is applied in a manner which is compatible with the other and enables them to be applied consistently (see judgment of 27 February 2014, Commission v EnBW , C‑365/12 P, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 84 and the case-law cited).

20 In addition, it has been held that Regulation No 1/2003 is designed, inter alia, to safeguard the confidentiality of information and the observance of the obligation of professional secrecy in proceedings under Article 101 TFEU, particularly in the context of the information arrangement established within the network of public authorities ensuring compliance with the EU competition rules (judgment of 12 May 2015, Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission , T‑623/13, EU:T:2015:268, paragraph 60).

21 As far as concerns access to documents, Regulation No 1/2003 therefore pursues a different objective to that pursued by Regulation No 1049/2001, which is designed to facilitate as far as possible the exercise of the right of access to documents and to promote good administrative practice by guaranteeing the greatest possible transparency in the decision-making process of public authorities and the information on which they base their decisions (see judgment of 12 May 2015, Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission , T‑623/13, EU:T:2015:268, paragraph 62 and the case-law cited).

22 Furthermore, it should be noted that, according to the case-law of the Court, the administrative activity of the Commission does not require such extensive access to documents as that required by the legislative activity of an EU institution. It is in the context of its administrative activity that the Commission participates in the network of public authorities ensuring compliance with the EU competition rules (judgment of 12 May 2015, Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission , T‑623/13, EU:T:2015:268, paragraph 63).

23 It is in the light of those principles that the applicant’s pleas must be examined.

The first plea in law alleging, in essence, infringement of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits

24 In the context of the first plea in law, the applicant submits, in essence, first, that he was not required to specify the interest underlying his request for access to the document in question and his failure to indicate the overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the document reflected his conviction that none of the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 was applicable. He further states that an applicant must demonstrate the existence of an overriding public interest only where it has been established first that one or more of the general presumptions recognised by the case-law with regard to certain categories of documents apply, which is not the case here.

25 Second, he submits that the fact that a document might be related to an inspection, investigation or audit does not suffice as justification for applying the exception provided for in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and that the Commission should have explained how the disclosure in the present case would undermine the purpose of an inspection, investigation or audit and that the justification given for the first time in the defence is insufficient and unfounded. He further submits that, while disclosure is generally presumed to undermine the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits where they are ongoing, in the present case the document in question does not include any reference to such an investigation. He states that the justification put forward by the Commission concerning the timeline for the investigative steps does not apply to certain parts of the text which have also been redacted.

26 Third, the applicant submits that the reference made in the contested decision to the judgment of 12 May 2015, Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission (T‑623/13, EU:T:2015:268), is without merit since the documents covered by the request for access in those proceedings and the document in question in the present case are different. The document in question is a blank document which does not contain any information whatsoever, let alone any confidential information. He adds that the reference to the non-binding precedent of the Ombudsman is not relevant.

27 Fourth, the applicant submits that the reasons given in the response of 4 October 2024 are not convincing since they set out a fictional scenario which constitutes a purely hypothetical risk of prejudice that cannot justify a refusal to grant access. The applicant concedes, however, that only the number of weeks indicated at pages 5 and 6 (Periods I to III) of the document in question may be covered by the exception relied on by the Commission. In his reply, he adds that that example does not demonstrate any nexus between the disclosure of the redacted parts and his ability to obtain knowledge of the content of the redacted preparatory steps, to understand that an investigation is ongoing, and his interest in alerting the companies under inspection, the Commission thereby appearing to assume that the applicant has a link with one of those companies.

28 The Commission disputes the applicant’s arguments.

29 At the outset, the applicant’s argument that he was not required to specify the interest underlying his request for access to the document in question must be rejected. It should be noted that the contested decision does not contain any reference to the fact that the applicant should have demonstrated the interest underlying his request, but only to the fact that he had not mentioned an overriding public interest, so that that argument is not relevant in the context of the present plea. Furthermore, as regards the applicant’s argument that an applicant must demonstrate the existence of an overriding public interest only where it has been established first that one or more of the general presumptions applied, that argument overlaps with the arguments in the second plea, and will therefore be examined in the context of that plea.

30 As regards the applicant’s other arguments, it is necessary to examine whether the Commission correctly applied the provisions of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. To that end, it is necessary, first, to ascertain whether the redacted parts of the document in question concern an activity referred to in that article and, second, to examine whether the protection of the purpose of inspections and investigations is undermined.

– The concepts of inspection and investigation

31 The applicant claims, in essence, that the exception provided for in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is not applicable to the redacted parts of the document in question.

32 According to the contested decision, the document in question is intended to serve as a reference for internal use by the national competition authorities when preparing requests for mutual assistance with investigative measures, that is to say, when they request a national competition authority of another Member State to carry out an inspection or any other investigative measure under its national law, on behalf and for the account of the requesting national competition authority.

33 In that regard, the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides that ‘the institutions shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of … the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits … unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.’

34 The concept of investigation covers all the research carried out by a competent authority in order to establish that an infringement has taken place as well as the procedure by which an administrative body gathers information and checks certain facts before making a decision (see judgment of 16 April 2015, Schlyter v Commission , T‑402/12, EU:T:2015:209, paragraph 53).

35 The concept of investigation, appearing in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, is an autonomous concept of EU law which must be interpreted taking into account, inter alia, its usual meaning as well as the context in which it occurs (see judgment of 7 September 2017, France v Schlyter , C‑331/15 P, EU:C:2017:639, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).

36 Thus, it has been held that, without there being any need to identify an exhaustive definition of ‘investigation’, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, a structured and formalised Commission procedure that has the purpose of collecting and analysing information in order to enable the institution to take a position in the context of its functions provided for by the EU and FEU Treaties must be considered to be such an investigation (judgment of 7 September 2017, France v Schlyter , C‑331/15 P, EU:C:2017:639, paragraph 46).

37 In addition, that procedure do not necessarily have to have the purpose of detecting or pursuing an offence or irregularity. The concept of ‘investigation’ could also cover a Commission activity intended to establish facts in order to assess a given situation (see judgment of 4 October 2018, Daimler v Commission , T‑128/14, EU:T:2018:643, paragraph 132 and the case-law cited).

38 In that regard, it should be noted that the concepts of ‘investigation’ and ‘inspection’ overlap, at least to a certain extent, since inspections may be regarded as investigations within the meaning of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

39 Lastly, it is apparent from the case-law that the fact that an investigation is, as the case may be, conducted by public authorities of Member States and not by an EU institution does not preclude the inclusion of a document within the scope of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, which is also intended to protect the interests specific to a Member State, such as the protection of inspections, investigations and audits pursued by the authorities of that Member State (see judgment of 28 May 2020, ViaSat v Commission , T‑649/17, not published, EU:T:2020:235, paragraph 70 and the case-law cited).

40 In the present case, it is common ground that the document in question is a standard form for a request for assistance from a national competition authority of one Member State to another, drawn up under Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 for the collection of evidence within the framework of the European Competition Network.

41 According to that article ‘the competition authority of a Member State may in its own territory carry out any inspection or other fact-finding measure under its national law on behalf and for the account of the competition authority of another Member State in order to establish whether there has been an infringement of Article [101 or Article 102 TFEU]. Any exchange and use of the information collected shall be carried out in accordance with Article 12 [of Regulation No 1/2003].’

42 Thus, it should be noted that the document in question was drawn up in the context of a structured and formalised procedure, established by Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, which seeks, inter alia, to ensure that a competition authority of a Member State may carry out in its own territory any inspection or other fact-finding measure under its national law on behalf of and for the account of the competition authority of another Member State.

43 Furthermore, while the document in question does not relate to a specific investigation, but is a form requesting assistance, it nevertheless concerns a specific procedure for a possible inspection in the context referred to in Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1/2003. It is used in such inspections and is completed by the competent authorities. In that regard, it includes, inter alia, a timeline and investigative steps, to be followed by the national competition authority concerned, to enable it to carry out an inspection in order to establish whether there has been an infringement of Article 101 or 102 TFEU.

44 Thus, the purpose of the document in question is collecting and analysing information in order to enable the national competition authority to take a position in the context of its functions provided for by the EU and FEU Treaties.

45 That is all the more so since the document in question forms part of a procedure which concerns cooperation between two competition authorities of different Member States.

46 Consequently, the document in question, as a whole, concerns an inspection and investigation within the meaning of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

– Whether the protection of the purpose of inspections and investigations is undermined

47 The applicant claims, in essence, that the Commission failed to demonstrate in the contested decision that disclosure of the redacted parts of the document in question would undermine the protection of the purpose of inspections and investigations.

48 As set out in paragraph 17 above, since they derogate from the principle of the widest possible access to documents by restricting that access, the exceptions to that principle, laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, must be interpreted and applied strictly.

49 It follows that, where an institution or an agency refuses access to a document which it has been asked to disclose, it must, in principle, explain how disclosure of that document could specifically and actually undermine the interest protected by the exception provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 upon which it is relying. Moreover, the risk of that undermining must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical (see judgment of 21 July 2011, Sweden v MyTravel and Commission , C‑506/08 P, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited).

50 As a preliminary point, while it is true that the facts in the judgment of 12 May 2015, Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission (T‑623/13, EU:T:2015:268), differ from those of the present case, that judgment remains relevant since, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraphs 18 to 21 above, the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 cannot be interpreted without taking into account the specific rules governing access to those documents, which are laid down, in the present case, by Regulation No 1/2003, and the fact that those two regulations pursue a different objective.

51 Thus, it must be held that the Commission did not err in law in relying on the judgment of 12 May 2015, Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission (T‑623/13, EU:T:2015:268), not in order to apply it to the facts of the present case, but to support or supplement its reasoning based on the special status of the documents drawn up in the context of cooperation between the Commission and the national authorities on the basis of Regulation No 1/2003. In that regard, it should be recalled that the Court held in the judgment of 12 May 2015, Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission (T‑623/13, EU:T:2015:268, paragraph 78), that the proper working of the information exchange arrangement, established within the network of public authorities ensuring compliance with the EU competition rules, requires that the information thus exchanged remain confidential. If it was possible for everyone to access, on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001, documents sent by the competition authorities of the Member States to the Commission, the guarantee of increased protection applying to the information sent, on which this arrangement is founded, would be undermined.

52 Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, it is not apparent from the contested decision that the Commission applied a general presumption of non-disclosure to the document in question, which would be contrary to the Court’s reasoning in the judgment of 12 May 2015, Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission (T‑623/13, EU:T:2015:268).

53 Thus, since the document in question was not subject to a general presumption, but it follows from the contested decision that an individual assessment of the document in question was carried out, it is necessary, in any event and regardless of the scope of the judgment of 12 May 2015, Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission (T‑623/13, EU:T:2015:268), or even of the decision of the European Ombudsman also referred to by the Commission in its defence, to examine whether the Commission has demonstrated that disclosure of the redacted parts of the document in question, namely the number of weeks and intermediate steps, specifically and actually undermines the protection of the purpose of inspections and investigations.

54 In that regard, it should be recalled that the redacted information in the present case concerns the number of weeks before the envisaged date of an inspection for Periods I to III and a description of the intermediate steps for Periods II and III.

55 It is apparent from the contested decision, in essence, that the document in question is not exclusively a Commission document, but a joint and confidential internal working document created in the context of the European Competition Network. According to that decision, the document in question is not a model to be used for each request for assistance and its use by the national competition authority is voluntary. The contested decision states that the risk of undermining the protection of the purpose of the investigation in the present case was foreseeable and not purely hypothetical, in so far as the redacted parts of the document in question lay out a timetable and investigative steps and therefore contain a more substantial description of certain confidential know-how and best practices that are based on the combined investigative experiences of the Commission and the national competition authorities. The contested decision also states that the redacted parts also contain an overview of the information needed by the national competent authorities during different steps of their investigation. According to the contested decision, if that information were made public, that would allow anyone who has been contacted as part of one of the outlined steps, to predict the expected date of the inspection, which could jeopardise the inspection procedure by, for example, the destruction of important files before that event. Thus, the protected interest in conducting an investigation would be specifically and actually undermined if access to the redacted parts of the document in question were granted.

56 By way of a measure of inquiry, the Court ordered the Commission to produce the document in question in its entirety and was thus able to ascertain the content of the redacted parts of that document without it being disclosed to the applicant, in accordance with Article 104 of the Rules of Procedure.

57 It follows that, as the Commission maintains, although the document in question is a form not yet completed by a national competition authority for a specific investigation, the redacted content of that document nevertheless establishes a specific procedure for a possible investigation, including a timeline for each of the steps of the investigation to be carried out by the national competition authority.

58 Disclosure of that information would enable any person who has become aware of the document in question to know the precise deadlines and the total duration of preparation for an inspection, so that such disclosure could specifically and actually undermine the interest protected in the present case and the risk of that interest being undermined is reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical. The applicant concedes, however, while maintaining that the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits cannot be undermined by the access requested and that the reasons put forward by the Commission were too abstract and general, that the number of weeks may be covered by the exception referred to in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

59 As regards the intermediate steps that have been redacted, taken individually and not in combination with the number of weeks that have also been redacted, it should be pointed out, as the Commission stated, that disclosure of the details of those steps would reveal at which phase of the preparation of the inspection those steps take place and thus enable any person who has become aware of that information to better anticipate the imminence of an inspection, especially since they set out an overview of the information needed by the national authorities at those stages and that they are the final stages before the inspection was carried out. In that regard, it should also be noted that the Commission gave wider access to the content of the document in question in the version annexed to the contested decision than in that annexed to the letter of 4 October 2024 and merely redacted the number of weeks for Periods I to III and the intermediate stages for Periods II and III.

60 In the present case, in view of the nature of the redacted parts of the document in question, their dissemination must be limited as far as possible in order to enable the Commission and the national competition authorities to maintain the element of surprise that is essential to prevent the risk of the evidence being destroyed or concealed.

61 In that regard, it is apparent, moreover, as stated in paragraphs 20 and 21 above, that Regulation No 1/2003 pursues, in relation to access to documents, a different objective from that pursued by Regulation No 1049/2001. Regulation No 1/2003 is designed to safeguard the confidentiality of information and the observance of the obligation of professional secrecy in proceedings under Article 101 TFEU, particularly in the context of the information arrangement established within the network of public authorities ensuring compliance with the EU competition rules.

62 In addition, the contested decision states that the document in question is an internal confidential working document. The fact that a document is headed ‘confidential’ is not in itself sufficient to justify application of the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (see judgment of 4 May 2012, In 't Veld v Council , T‑529/09, EU:T:2012:215, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited). However, such a reference cannot be regarded as entirely irrelevant as an indication of the sensitive content of the document.

63 Thus, disclosure of the number of weeks before the envisaged date of an inspection for Periods I to III and of the intermediate steps for Periods II and III, both in combination and separately, would specifically and actually undermine the protection of the purpose of inspections and investigations and constitutes a reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical risk of such undermining.

64 That conclusion cannot be called into question by the applicant’s other arguments.

65 In the first place, as regards the applicant’s argument that the Commission’s justification concerning the content of the redacted parts is presented for the first time in the defence, it should be noted, as the Commission submitted, that the contested decision already stated that the redacted parts establish a specific procedure for a possible inspection, ‘including a timeline for each of the investigative steps to be conducted by the national competition authority’ and that those parts ‘lay out a timeline and investigative steps and therefore contain a more substantial description of certain confidential know-how and best practices that are based on the combined investigative experiences of the Commission and the [national competition authorities]’.

66 The only redacted references, apart from the number of weeks, concern Periods II and III of the document in question, so that the explanations provided in the contested decision necessarily concerned those periods. Thus, the explanations set out in the defence, which stated that the redacted information other than the number of weeks contained ‘the description of the specific preparatory steps taking place in Periods II and Period III’, were not new. Consequently, the applicant’s argument must be rejected.

67 In the second place, as regards the applicant’s argument that the Commission should have explained how disclosure in the present case undermined the purpose of the investigation, assuming that, by that argument, the applicant alleges that the statement of reasons is insufficient, it should be borne in mind that the statement of reasons for a measure must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. In the case of a request for access to documents, where the institution in question refuses such access, it must demonstrate in each individual case, on the basis of the information at its disposal, that the documents to which access is sought do indeed fall within the exceptions listed in Regulation No 1049/2001. However, it may be impossible to give reasons justifying the need for confidentiality in respect of each individual document without disclosing the content of the document and thereby defeating the very purpose of the exception (see judgment of 5 December 2018, Falcon Technologies International v Commission , T‑875/16, not published, EU:T:2018:877, paragraph 68 and the case-law cited).

68 In the present case, the Commission carried out, in the contested decision, a specific and individual assessment of the document in question. Point 2.1 of that decision sets out, over more than five pages, the reasons why the Commission considers that there is a risk of undermining the protection of the purpose of investigations and inspections. The absence of further details regarding the content of the redacted parts cannot be interpreted as a failure by the Commission to carry out a specific examination of those parts, since disclosure of those details, according to the Commission, would have risked undermining the protected interest.

69 Thus, since the contested decision clearly sets out the reasoning followed by the Commission, the applicant’s argument must be rejected.

70 In the third place, as regards the applicant’s argument that the justification set out in the contested decision is unfounded and presents only a hypothetical risk of harm, the following should be noted.

71 It is apparent from the contested decision that the Commission carried out a specific analysis of the elements relating to the content and context of the document in question and its redacted parts, which enabled it to conclude, on the basis of certain specific circumstances, that disclosure of the redacted parts of that document would risk undermining the protection of the purpose of inspections and investigations.

72 In that regard, the Commission provided specific examples, inter alia, by stating in the contested decision that the redacted parts of the document in question contain sensitive internal information and guidance on the investigation procedure in the context of mutual assistance and that their disclosure would therefore seriously undermine the successful conduct of future investigations and inspections in the field of competition law enforcement according to Regulation No 1/2003.

73 The contested decision also refers to the situation where: ‘… if the existence of one of the specific preparatory steps contained in the document at hand were to be leaked to the target company, for example if the fact that translations of some required documents have been transmitted at a certain date is leaked, combined with the timing of this step relative to the investigation date (which is part of the information redacted in the document), then the target company could easily deduce the date of the investigation (and how much time is left to delete the evidence). In this sense, “leak” does not refer in the strict sense only to a leak of the date of transmission of the translations of certain requested documents to an undertaking envisaged to be inspected, but rather it refers to the idea that the dispersion of any element of information related to inspections should be limited as much as possible in order to allow the Commission and [national competition authorities] to preserve a surprise effect that is essential to prevent the risk that the evidence will be destroyed or concealed (i.e., in a general sense).’

74 First, in so far as the applicant complains that the Commission relied on hypothetical situations, it should be recalled that, since access to the redacted parts of the document in question was not granted, the Commission was necessarily required to set out a potential situation in which access to those parts would be granted. Therefore, the mere fact that, in the contested decision, the Commission took account of the potential situation in which it would grant access to those redacted parts is not in itself capable of calling into question the validity of its reasoning.

75 Second, contrary to what the applicant claims, such a justification is not purely hypothetical. It is a concrete example of a situation which could lead to the risk of undermining the protection of the purpose of inspections and investigations. Disclosure of the redacted parts of the document in question would enable any person who became aware of one of the stages described to better anticipate that the national competition authority concerned was preparing an imminent inspection and to calculate the expected date of that inspection, as set out in paragraphs 58 and 59 above, so that the risk of such undermining was reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical.

76 Third, as regards the applicant’s arguments set out in the reply relating to his ability to obtain knowledge of the content of the redacted preparatory stages, to understand that an investigation is ongoing and his interest in alerting the companies under inspection, it should be noted, as the Commission stated, that public access pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 is provided erga omnes and disclosed documents will be published on the Commission’s website. Furthermore, the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not require that the risk of undermining the purpose of inspections and investigations stem from the applicant.

77 Consequently, the applicant’s arguments that there is no undermining of the protection of the purpose of inspections and investigations must be rejected.

78 The first plea in law must therefore be rejected in its entirety.

The second plea in law, relating to the need to demonstrate an overriding public interest

79 The applicant submits, in essence, in the first place, that the argument that he should have demonstrated an overriding public interest capable of overriding the public interest protected by the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 would be relevant only if the Commission had itself previously demonstrated that access to the document in question would specifically and actually undermine the purpose of inspections and investigations, which is not the case. He further states that, under Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the applicant is not obliged to state reasons for the application.

80 In the second place, he states that, in any event, there is indeed an overriding public interest in making known the information in the present case and providing transparency about the workings of the national competition authorities, in particular when one national authority requests assistance under Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 from another national competition authority or the Commission, for the purpose of gathering evidence (by means of inspections, requests for information, written or oral testimony, or other investigative measures). He states that that interest has, moreover, been recognised by the EU institutions in order to comply with a Recommendation on Transparency and Procedural Fairness in Competition Law Enforcement adopted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2021. He adds that those interests are worthy of protection since such inspections and investigations significantly impact undertakings’ fundamental rights, such as the rights of the defence, due process, privacy and respect for home and communications. He concedes, however, that the only part which may be covered by the exception laid down in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is the number of weeks indicated at pages 5 and 6 of the document in question.

81 The Commission contests the applicant’s arguments, it being noted that that institution maintains, without, however, raising an objection of inadmissibility in respect of that argument, that the applicant did not rely on that overriding public interest in his confirmatory application or in his initial request.

82 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, when an institution applies one of the exceptions provided for in Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, it must weigh the particular interest to be protected through non-disclosure of the document concerned against, inter alia, the public interest in the document being made accessible, having regard to the advantages of increased openness, as described in recital 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that it enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system (see judgment of 7 February 2018, Access Info Europe v Commission , T‑851/16, EU:T:2018:69, paragraph 102 and the case-law cited).

83 It is, however, for the party requesting access to rely on specific circumstances to show that there is an overriding public interest to justify the disclosure of the documents (see judgment of 14 November 2013, LPN and Finland v Commission , C‑514/11 P and C‑605/11 P, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 94 and the case-law cited).

84 A statement setting out purely general considerations is not sufficient for the purpose of establishing that an overriding public interest prevails over the reasons justifying the refusal to disclose the documents in question (see judgments of 27 February 2014, Commission v EnBW , C‑365/12 P, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 105 and the case-law cited, and of 2 October 2014, Strack v Commission , C‑127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, paragraph 131 and the case-law cited).

85 In the contested decision, it was considered, in essence, that although the applicant was not required to specify the overriding public interest justifying his request for access to documents, in the absence of such justification, it was not possible or necessary for the Commission to anticipate the arguments which the applicant might put forward in order to waive the exception to the right of access provided for in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, that the applicant had still not put forward arguments capable of justifying the existence of an overriding public interest in his confirmatory application and that, therefore, it had to be considered that, in this case, there was no overriding public interest that would outweigh the need to safeguard the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits.

86 As a preliminary point, as regards the applicant’s argument referred to in paragraph 29 above that an applicant must demonstrate the existence of an overriding public interest only where it has been established beforehand that one or more of the general presumptions recognised by the case-law with regard to certain categories of documents apply, it should be recalled that the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides, in essence, that the institutions are to refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. It is not apparent from the wording of that article that a general presumption must necessarily be applied in order for an overriding public interest to be demonstrated. Furthermore, if an exception provided for in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is applied, as was confirmed in the present case in the context of the first plea, it is, subsequently, for the applicant requesting access to demonstrate the existence of an overriding public interest.

87 It is, however, apparent from the case-law that even in the absence of such a presumption, the existence of such an overriding public interest in disclosure was examined (see, to that effect, judgments of 7 February 2018, Access Info Europe v Commission , T‑851/16, EU:T:2018:69, paragraphs 79 and 112; of 5 December 2018, Falcon Technologies International v Commission , T‑875/16, not published, EU:T:2018:877, paragraphs 64 and 84; and of 15 December 2021, Breyer v REA , T‑158/19, EU:T:2021:902, paragraphs 181 to 204).

88 Thus, the requirement to prove the existence of an overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not depend on whether the institution applied a general presumption or carried out an individual assessment of the document.

89 In addition, in the first place, as regards the applicant’s argument that the Commission had first to demonstrate that access to the document in question would specifically and actually undermine the purpose of inspections and investigations, it should be noted that it is apparent from the response to the first plea that that is the case, with the result that that argument must be rejected.

90 In the second place, as regards the interests referred to by the applicant in his written pleadings, it should first be noted that, according to settled case-law, the legality of an individual contested measure must be assessed on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time when the measure was adopted (see judgment of 6 July 2006, Franchet and Byk v Commission , T‑391/03 and T‑70/04, EU:T:2006:190, paragraph 114 and the case-law cited). Furthermore, it is for the applicant who intends to rely on such an interest to invoke it in his or her application so as to invite the institution to give a decision on that point (judgment of 1 July 2008, Sweden and Turco v Council , C‑39/05 P and C‑52/05 P, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 84).

91 It must be stated that the applicant had not, at that time, identified any overriding public interest and therefore did not invite the Commission to give a decision on that point in the contested decision.

92 In any event, it should be noted, as the Commission observed, that the interests referred to by the applicant in the application and in the reply are purely general considerations.

93 Such general considerations cannot establish that the principles relied on were, in the present case, especially pressing and should have prevailed over the reasons justifying the refusal to disclose the information in question. In his pleadings, the applicant merely provides a reference to the Recommendation on Transparency and Procedural Fairness in Competition Law Enforcement adopted by the OECD. In that regard, it should be noted that, in any event, the fact that the Commission participated in the drafting of that recommendation, establishing that the application of competition law must be fair, predictable and transparent, in no way establishes, as the Commission states, the primacy of the principle of transparency over the protection of the purpose of inspections and investigations in antitrust matters in the present case. Furthermore, the applicant’s claims relating to the fundamental rights of undertakings, such as the rights of the defence, due process, privacy, and respect for home and communications, are also unsubstantiated and very general in nature.

94 Accordingly, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is an overriding public interest which would justify disclosure of the requested documents.

95 Consequently, the applicant’s arguments relating to the overriding public interest must be rejected and the second plea in law must be rejected in its entirety.

96 It follows from all the foregoing that the action must be dismissed in its entirety.

Costs

97 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

98 In the present case, since the applicant has been unsuccessful, he must be ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Giulio Cesare Rizza to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 October 2026.

* Language of the case: English.