By Toby McIntosh
An unjustified assertion of blanket secrecy for the minutes of a meeting is inconsistent with the transparency policy at the European Investment Bank, according to a ruling in a complaint brought by Eye on Global Transparency.
The decision might eventually provide new insight into the workings of consortium that controls a major international database. The EIB must now reconsider its initial total denial of access, but it could still prevent disclosure of portions of the document.
Failing to release even a portion of the minutes was criticized in the “Conclusions Report” from the EIB Complaints Mechanisms (EIB-CM), essentially an internal appeals body. The EIB-CM said the institution failed to justify its decision to withhold completely the minutes of a meeting of the governing body that oversees the Global Emerging Markets (GEMs) Risk Database.
“… [T]he reasons put forward by the Bank do not justify the full refusal of access to the document based on the decision-making exception,” according to the 14-page decision dated April 25, 2025. The decision stresses that the EIB’s transparency policy provides “a right to partial access” when there is no legitimate justification for confidentiality.
EYE requested the minutes of the 2023 annual meeting of the “General Assembly,” the body that oversees the GEMs database, held Oct. 25-28, 2023, in Cairo, Egypt. At the time, key questions about the transparency of the database were under discussion.
Attending the meeting were representatives from the two dozen multilateral development banks and development finance institutions who contribute detailed data on their investments in developing countries. The EIB is the Secretariat for the consortium and there also is a Steering Committee. The Consortium’s member institutions’ representatives meet at the beginning of the year for a Working Group Annual Meeting and the latter in the year for a General Assembly Annual Meeting.
Readers: For notification of new EYE postings please sign up for free using Subscribe in the right column. No deluge, usually several articles a month on a variety of global transparency topics. Or, less reliably, follow EYE on Bluesky @tobymc.bsky.social, Twitter @tobyjmcintosh or LinkedIn.
Background on Reasons for Seeking the Minutes
Interest in the future of the GEMs database was high in 2023.
The GEMs database contains information on the risks of investment in developing countries. In recent years both the private and public sectors, and the G-20, have urged that it be made more transparent. The perceived benefit is that greater access to the GEMs data would encourage more private sector investment in developing countries. While the EIB has increased its periodic reporting of aggregated data, critics say the levels of disclosure remain inadequate. The pro-transparency effort seems to have flagged.
However, in 2023 the push for disclosure of more GEMs data was active when the General Assembly convened.
The EIB, however, does not issue any information after the meetings.
EYE asked for the minutes on Dec. 18, 2023, relying on the EIB’s transparency policyThe request was completely denied on Jan. 26, 2024.
Multiple Reasons Given for EIB’s Refusal to Disclose Minutes
The EIB said disclosure would interfere with the deliberative process, subject members of the Assembly to “external pressure,” and “seriously undermine” the EIB’s capacity to carry out its management role. Partial disclosure of the document would not be “meaningful,” according to the Bank’s denial.
EYE appealed on April 29, 2024, contending that the EIB misapplied several exemptions in the transparency policy and failed to consider the option of releasing portions of the document.
Under the EIB procedures, the EIB Complaints Mechanisms recommendations must now be considered by the EIB.
In reaching its decision, EIB-CM includes references to the European Ombudsman’s guide on the right of public access to European Union documents and case law from the Court of Justice of the EU.
The minutes are 16 pages long and include “action points,” according the decision, which states:
The document at issue, that is, the GEMs Consortium – General Assembly Annual Meeting Executive Summary and Minutes, is composed of 16 pages. It predominately contains technical information and developments discussed on 26 and 27 October 2023 during the Consortium’s General Assembly Annual Meeting held in Cairo, Egypt. The document at issue also contains action points for some of the 13 items discussed over the two-day period and a list of participants on pages 15 and 16.
Failure to Consider Partial Disclosure Faulted
“An inspection of the document at issue by the EIB-CM confirms that some, not all, of the information contained therein is gathered for the purpose of decision-making,” according to the ruling.
However, it continued, “… the Bank did not conduct a specific examination of the document’s content with a view to potentially granting partial access to it.”
Moreover, the EIB-CM said, “There are indications that Article 5.7 of the EIB-TP may have been used as a blanket justification in this particular instance.” Article 5.7 is the deliberative process exemption, which says information may be withheld “if disclosure of the document/information would seriously undermine the EIB’s decision-making process.”
Disagreeing the blanket denial, the EIB-CB said, “A primary indication is that significant portions of the document at issue do not pertain to any deliberative process which aims at allowing the Consortium to take a position on a given matter.”
The EIB-CM said that withheld material includes credit risk statistics contained in the 2022 Annual Report and a list of participants “where no risk of the decisionmaking process being undermined can be established, although data protection considerations could potentially be warranted.”
The deliberative process exception relied on by the EIB “was not interpreted strictly with a view to granting the greatest possible access to the document and was, thus, incompatible with the Bank’s presumption of disclosure principle,” according to the decision, further suggesting that such information “could have been disclosed.”
No ‘Meaningful’ Test, the EIB-CM Says
The decision rejected the EIB’s contention that ‘partial access would not be meaningful” saying “it is not for the EIB to determine what is meaningful or not for the applicant.”
Nor must a requester prove that the requested document is “meaningful” to them, the decision continued, stating, “In any event, the determination of what is meaningful or not for the requester cannot be up to the institution which must respond to their request.”
No Other Grounds for Protection
The EIB-CM rejects other EIB arguments as “abstract” and unsupported and outlines the standards for reconsideration.
The decision (citations dropped) states:
Lastly, the risk of a protected interest being undermined must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical and, in order to fall within the scope of the exception at issue, must be serious. In this respect, the reasons put forward by the EIB in justifying refusal to the document at issue are made in a general and abstract fashion without being supported by any detailed argument on the content of the document in question. In addition, at least one of the reasons put forward, i.e. that certain decisions mentioned in the minutes have already been superseded, provides further indication that wider access may be possible.
The last sentence may be significant, suggesting the disclosure should be made if later actions are taken.
The ‘Outcome’ and Instructions
The EIB-CM said it considers “that the reasons put forward by the Bank do not justify the full refusal of access to the document at issue based on the decision-making exception, particularly in recognition of the existence of a right to partial access.”
The decision concludes with two recommendations.
First, “that the EIB re-assess, based on the specific content of the document at issue, the possibility of granting full or partial access to the document at issue.” It said, “The EIB’s assessment outcome should be shared in correspondence with the complainant and should be adequately justified.”
Second, “The EIB-CM expects the EIB to implement its recommendation within three months following issuance of this Conclusions Report.”
See text of the 2025-04-25 Complaint SG-A-2024-01 Global Emerging Markets Consortium Disclosure of the General Assembly Annual Meeting Minutes-Conclusions Report.
Past EYE Stories on GEMs
The ruling on the minutes was the second ruling in favor of an appeal by brought by EYE. Earlier this year, the EIB disclosed more information about an unusual 2019 licensing agreement with ILX, a Dutch investment company — the only known instance in which a private company gained access to the GEMs database.
EIB Releases Details on Agreement to Give GEMs Data to Dutch Company (March 23, 2025)
EIB Complaints Body Supports Disclosures on GEMs Licensing Deal (Dec. 18, 2024)
Private Sector Observers Seek More Information From GEMs Database (Oct. 24, 2024)
GEMs Consortium Issues More Granular Data; Critics Seek More Transparency (Oct. 15, 2024)
New GEMs Data Criticized for Lacking Granularity; But One Generality Praised (March 26, 2024)
EIB Denies Access to Minutes of GEMS Consortium as Private Debate Continues (Jan. 29, 2024)
GEMs Overseers Decide Against Moving Database; Still Promise Transparency (Jan. 18, 2024)
Transparency Future for GEMs Database Remains Unclear; Meeting Upcoming, (Oct. 20, 2023)
Disclosure of GEMs Database Still Likely, But When, What, and by Whom Unclear (Oct. 6, 2023)
Past EIB Deal Offers Insights into Value of Nonpublic Database on Lending Risks (June 23, 2023)
GEMs Steering Committee Has ‘Proactive Agenda’ to Disclose Lending Risk Data (April 11, 2023)
Development Banks Considering Transparency for GEMs Database (March 20, 2023)
