Strategic Project, Restricted Document: How the Jadar File Became Partly Public

by

Executive summary

A requester sought public access to a letter by which the Serbian authorities supported the designation of the Jadar lithium-mining project as a strategic project under the EU Critical Raw Materials Act.

The European Commission initially refused access, arguing that disclosure could undermine international relations with Serbia. After the requester submitted a confirmatory application and the European Ombudsman opened an inquiry, the Commission granted wide partial access. Only limited personal data were redacted, and those redactions were not challenged.

The Ombudsman closed the matter as settled by the institution but regretted the Commission’s delay in adopting the confirmatory decision.

The case does not prove that the original refusal was unlawful. It does, however, create a strong forensic question: if wide partial access was ultimately possible, how specifically was the initial risk to international relations assessed?

The institutional sequence

The public record establishes the following sequence:

  1. The requester asked for access to the Serbian approval letter.
  2. The Commission refused access and relied on the protection of international relations.
  3. The requester asked the Commission to review its refusal.
  4. The Commission acknowledged the confirmatory application but did not decide within the legal time limit.
  5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry and sought to inspect the document.
  6. The Commission later granted wide partial access, redacting limited personal data.
  7. The Ombudsman closed the case as settled while criticising the delay.

This sequence matters because the eventual disclosure provides a practical test of the breadth of the original refusal.

Core forensic question

If almost the entire document could later be disclosed, what concrete harm to international relations justified refusing access at the initial stage?

An exception protecting international relations can be legitimate. However, a defensible refusal should identify a reasonably foreseeable and non-hypothetical risk linked to the actual content of the document.

A general statement that a document concerns relations with a non-EU country is not the same as a document-specific harm assessment.

Expected evidence trace

A complete administrative file should contain:

  • the original access request;
  • identification of the requested document;
  • consultation with the document’s author or the Serbian authorities, if undertaken;
  • the initial refusal;
  • a document-by-document and passage-by-passage harm assessment;
  • consideration of partial access;
  • the confirmatory application;
  • internal legal and policy advice;
  • the final partial-access decision;
  • the disclosed and redacted versions;
  • records explaining the delay.

What the final outcome demonstrates

The final outcome supports several limited conclusions:

  • the document was not wholly exempt from disclosure;
  • partial access was operationally possible;
  • personal-data redactions were sufficient for the remaining protected content;
  • the confirmatory process was delayed;
  • Ombudsman intervention preceded the final disclosure.

It does not automatically demonstrate that the Commission acted in bad faith or that no international-relations concern existed at the earlier stage.

Formalism risk

The case illustrates two possible forms of administrative formalism.

Broad exception formalism

An institution may invoke a recognised legal exception without demonstrating how it applies to the specific passages of a document.

Procedural-delay formalism

An institution may acknowledge a review request and keep the procedure formally open while failing to adopt a decision within the required period.

In both cases, the procedure exists, but the right may become ineffective in practice.

Alternative explanations

The Commission’s assessment may have changed because circumstances evolved, consultations were completed or diplomatic concerns diminished. The Ombudsman’s inspection request may also have prompted a more detailed review that was not available at the first stage.

The available public summary does not show the internal analysis or the precise content disclosed. A complete legal evaluation would require comparison of the original refusal, the final decision and the released document.

Public-interest relevance

The Jadar project sits at the intersection of industrial policy, environmental controversy, EU enlargement relations and strategic access to raw materials.

Where a project is formally designated as strategic, transparency becomes especially important. The label may affect public perceptions, investment decisions and political debate. Citizens should be able to understand what a third-country authority formally approved and what information the Commission relied upon.

Preliminary finding

The strongest institutional lesson is not that all strategic-project documents must be public. It is that broad secrecy claims require granular reasoning and timely review.

The eventual release of almost the whole document creates a legitimate expectation that the Commission should explain, in comparable cases, why full refusal is necessary and why partial access cannot be granted immediately.

Recommended Civic Forensics modules

  • Analysis of an Individual Administrative Act
  • Document Comparison
  • Evidence Register
  • Administrative Silence and Delay Analysis
  • Expected Evidence Trace Plan
  • Legal and Ethical Publication Review

Source

European Ombudsman, How the European Commission dealt with a request for public access to documents related to a lithium mining project in Serbia that was designated as a strategic project under the Critical Raw Materials Act , case 3238/2025/MIG, decision of 16 July 2026: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/71106

Limitations

This analysis is based on the Ombudsman’s published case summary. It does not independently assess the undisclosed portions of the file, the environmental merits of the Jadar project or the legality of the strategic-project designation.