Source (Politico Article)
US to EU: Your bureaucrats are not entitled to anonymity
My Personal Opinion
I came across this article on Politico, and it left me with the impression that the European Commission is growing increasingly authoritarian, detached, and opaque.
It appears that the European Commission is intent on reserving certain privileges for itself. As Nadgey Fones, spokesperson for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, aptly put it: the quote speaks for itself.
European Commission officials were insisting on anonymity for themselves while pursuing policies that would eliminate online anonymity for users inside and outside Europe.
ChatGPT
The European Commission is based in Brussels, Belgium so they fall under the Belgian law I guess. Let’s ask ChatGPT for a practical example:
Dear ChatGPT, I’m based in Belgium and I’m a journalist. Can I copy paste an email I received from a public official and include its name in the article ? I didn’t change the email, I’m just copy pasting it.
Yes — in Belgium, you can in principle quote or reproduce (part of) an email from a public official and mention their name, but there are important legal nuances.
I’ll break it down clearly from a Belgian legal perspective:
1️⃣ Is the sender a public official acting in their official capacity?
This is the most important factor.
If the email:
- was sent in their official function
- concerns public policy, public administration, or matters of public interest
- was sent to you as a journalist
👉 Then it is generally considered part of the public debate.
Under:
- Freedom of expression and press (Article 19 Belgian Constitution)
- Article 10 ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights)
You are typically allowed to:
- Quote the email
- Attribute it to the official
- Reproduce it verbatim
As long as:
- It is accurate
- It is not misleading
- It serves the public interest
2️⃣ Copyright: can you copy-paste it entirely?
Emails are technically protected by copyright.
However:
- Short functional emails from officials usually lack originality
- Even if protected, journalistic quotation is allowed under right of quotation (Art. XI.189 Belgian Code of Economic Law)
Conditions:
- The use must serve a purpose (information, critique, reporting)
- The quotation must be proportional
- The source and author must be mentioned
If you are reproducing the entire email, the proportionality test becomes more sensitive — but in journalistic context, this is often justified.
3️⃣ GDPR / privacy concerns
Because it’s a public official acting in an official role, their name and professional communication:
- Is not “private life”
- Is part of their public function
- Falls under legitimate journalistic processing (GDPR Art. 85)
However:
- Avoid publishing private phone numbers
- Avoid private email addresses (unless clearly professional and already public)
- Avoid irrelevant personal details
4️⃣ Defamation / risk factor
Even if you copy-paste exactly:
- You remain responsible for publication.
- If the email contains defamatory statements about third parties, you could share liability.
So always check:
- Are there accusations?
- Are there factual claims that could be contested?
- Do you need balance or reply?
5️⃣ Practical safest approach
Instead of just copy-pasting, many Belgian media use:
“In an email to our editorial team, [Name], [Title], states: ‘…’”
This:
- Shows context
- Avoids publishing metadata
- Reduces risk
6️⃣ When you should be careful
⚠️ If the email:
- Was marked confidential
- Was clearly private
- Was leaked by a third party
- Concerns internal deliberations not meant for publication
Then the analysis changes.
Short answer
If it is:
- A public official
- Writing in their official capacity
- On a matter of public interest
- Sent directly to you as a journalist
👉 Yes, you can generally quote it verbatim and include their name.
OK, thanks ChatGPT.
Why is transparency in official documents — including the names of public officials — so important?
Consider the following hypothetical example. Suppose a European Commission official, John White (a fictional name), is tasked with drafting an EU Digital Act. In preparing the legal text, he uses all available policy tools to significantly curb the influence of major U.S. tech companies. The legislation is adopted and enters into force. The next day, the share prices of several U.S. tech firms drop sharply on the stock market.
Conflict of interest
Now imagine that the name “White” appears nowhere — not in draft texts, internal reports, emails, or any related documentation. What assurances would exist that Mr. White — or his spouse, partner, or close relatives — had not taken short positions in those companies beforehand? How could we assess whether he previously worked for competing foreign tech firms, or whether he might take up such a position shortly after the law’s adoption?
Corruption
Without transparency, how could the public rule out the possibility that third parties offered financial incentives to shape the legislation in a particular direction?
Where do you put the limit?
At what point does anonymity go too far? Should Members of the European Parliament or even European Commissioners remain unnamed in official records? Should figures such as Ursula von der Leyen be referred to by code names like “Goldfinger” or “007” instead of their actual names?
Lobbying
Perhaps Mr. White did not even draft the proposal independently. Perhaps portions of the text originated from lobbyists. Without clear attribution and documentation, how could such influence ever be scrutinized or verified?
The European Commission only want to disclose the name of senior staff names (all the other names will be deleted and forgotten).
The European Commission appears willing to disclose only the names of senior staff, while removing or withholding all others.
What happens, then, if the “senior official” — the one formally credited instead of Mr. White — retires or passes away? Would that individual effectively take to the grave the knowledge of who actually drafted, revised, or influenced the EU Digital Act? If only one person is publicly identified, that person becomes the sole visible source of accountability, even though many others may have shaped the substance of the law.
Recognition and Career Impact
What about giving proper credit to younger officials?
Imagine that a junior official — let’s call her Ms. Green — contributed meaningfully to drafting the EU Digital Act. She may wish to reference that work on her CV or LinkedIn profile to strengthen her prospects at a law firm. Yet if her name appears nowhere in official Commission records, how can her contribution be independently verified? Would she be able to claim authorship publicly while remaining invisible in the institutional documentation?
Senior vs junior
How is “senior” versus “junior” defined? By age? By years of service? By overall experience, or by relevant subject-matter expertise?
If a newspaper reports the name of a “public official,” would journalists be expected to verify that person’s employment grade? Would they need access to ID documents to determine age, or employment contracts to confirm seniority? The distinction quickly becomes blurred and difficult to apply consistently.
Legal Assistance as a “Benefit in Kind”?
According to Politico, the Commission indicated it would protect its staff, potentially including legal or financial assistance. I quote from the Politico’s article:
….. Commission would protect its staff and that this could include legal or financial assistance.
This raises further questions. Under Belgian law, certain advantages provided by an employer can qualify as a “voordeel in natura” (benefit in kind). Such benefits are typically regulated, documented in employment contracts, and taxed accordingly — much like company cars, laptops, mobile phones, or meal vouchers. If legal or financial assistance is systematically offered, should it not be transparently formalized and treated under the same regulatory framework?
US Congress
In any event, one might argue that without scrutiny from bodies such as the United States Congress, these practices might never have come to light.
European Commission email Disclaimer
In Belgium, emails sent by public officials in the exercise of their duties are generally regarded as official administrative documents.
Now consider this: the European Commission often (and maybe systematically) includes the following disclaimer in its email signatures:
“The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.”
At the same time, in many exchanges, Commission officials are not required to include their full names and may correspond through generic or functional mailboxes.
So, if I understand correctly, the objective seems to be twofold: anonymity of public officials, combined with the characterization of official correspondence as merely the personal views of an unidentified author.
If that is the case, one might reasonably ask: what is the purpose of having public officials at all? If institutional accountability is diluted to this extent, why maintain the structure — why not simply outsource the entire function to an anonymous external service provider?
Final Remark
In my view, the European Commission is in need of meaningful reform. At some point, it may require a clear wake-up call — a reminder that its role is to serve the public interest, not to place itself above the citizens it is meant to represent.