On 9 July 2025, the General Court of the EU decided in favour of former MEP and EP Vice-President Eva Kaili in a case on access to documents. Eva Kaili is one of the key suspects of the Qatargate corruption scandal, in which countries like Qatar, Morocco, and Mauritania allegedly gave money or gifts to MEPs and EP staff in exchange for influence at the European Parliament (EP). The case at issue (T-1031/23) concerned Kaili's application for access to documents under the EU's transparency Directive 1049/2001.

Background of the case

In December 2022, based on an investigation into the management of parliamentary allowances, the European Chief Prosecutor of the EPPO requested that the President of the European Parliament lift Ms Eva Kaili's parliamentary immunity. This was announced by the President of the Parliament, Roberta Metsola, in a plenary session and referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs. In a separate application to the General Court, Ms Kaili requested the annulment of both the European Chief Prosecutor's request and the President of the Parliament's decision (Case T-46/23; for the GC's decision in this case →eucrim 4/2023, 321).

Subsequently, based on Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents held by the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission, Ms Kaili requested that Parliament grant her access to documents relating to all cases involving irregularities by Members of the European Parliament in the management of allowances relating to accredited parliamentary assistants. In response, the European Parliament denied access to the documents, arguing that granting access would undermine the protection of court proceedings in Ms Kaili's case against the European Parliament, which is pending before the General Court. Consequently, Ms Kaili sought annulment of this EP deicsion before the General Court (GC).

Judgment of the General Court

In its judgement, the GC found that the requested documents, which concern the Parliament’s administrative activity, relate to a different subject matter than that of the case concerning the annulment of lifting Kaili's immunity (see above). The documents were neither drawn up for the purposes of the proceedings in the case brought before the General Court, nor do they contain the Parliament's internal positions relating to that case file. Therefore, the General Court found that disclosure of the requested documents would neither compromise the equality of arms, nor would access to the documents be detrimental to the sound administration of justice in the case brought before it. Therefore, under these circumstances, access to the requested documents could not be refused on the grounds of protecting court proceedings. This therefore annuls the decision of the European Parliament not to grant access.