On 19 June 2026, we had the chance to present our work in progress paper at the ‘Algorithmic Transparency and Explainability’ panel during TILTing Perspectives 2026, the 9th edition of TILT’s biennial conference, held this year in Tilburg under the theme “Between Values and Innovation: Tech Governance in a Multicentric World.”
Debates about algorithmic transparency tend to focus on the technology itself, such as model architecture, training data, explainability tools. Our panel contribution pushed the conversation with a simple provocation: the appearance of technological determinism is convenient for those who hold power over social choices in technology. Before we can scrutinise an algorithm, we often need the institutional documents that describe it, and increasingly, the European Commission is finding ways not to share them.
The starting point is Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, the EU’s access to institutional documents framework. Running alongside it is the General Presumption of Confidentiality (GPC), a judge-made device that lets institutions refuse a document request simply because it falls into a recognised category, without showing disclosure would cause concrete harm. Safeguards exist in principle, such as the duty to give reasons, rebuttal, partial disclosure, but they’re increasingly theoretical in the digital sector. Especially problematic is the “overriding public interest” (OPI) test, which has become dangerously arbitrary in practice.
The paper then provides 3 concrete case studies, illustrating how the European Commission is using the GPC as a default shield rather than a calibrated exception.
- Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3080, extending confidentiality to DMA/DSA procedure documents. Currently pending before the CJEU in the case of De Capitani and Others v Commission.
- X’s denied DSA risk impact assessment, where a journalist’s request of access has been refused on commercial/investigation grounds; the European Ombudswoman declared this maladministration, but the Commission has not changed its course.
- Data centres’ environmental reporting, where a provision lobbied by Big Tech keeps energy and water-use data confidential despite the Aarhus Regulation’s rule that emissions-related environmental information cannot be withheld on commercial grounds. The European Parliament has declared this unlawful.
This echoes similar patterns elsewhere in EU digital regulation (e.g.; GDPR adequacy decisions, DMA gatekeepers compliance, and DSA supervisory powers), widening the gap between technological elites and the public.
This work-in-progress paper is co-authored by Vilma Margarit Nikolaeva, Dr. Plixavra Vogiatzoglou, and Dr. Kristina Irion.
Part of “Artificial Secrecy,” funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO).
