DG COMP: documents exist, access refused
DG COMP states that it holds documents within the request and that they form part of DMA investigation case files. It refuses access to all of them, including partial access.
What the document says
DG COMP says the documents it holds in scope of the request form part of case files in investigations under the Digital Markets Act. It links those documents in particular to monitoring and enforcement of the interoperability obligation in Article 6(7) DMA.
The department refuses access under Article 4(2), first and third indents, of Regulation 1049/2001: protection of commercial interests and protection of the purpose of investigations. It says the documents contain commercial and market-sensitive information, including commercial strategies, and that the investigation has not been finally concluded.
How DG COMP justifies the full refusal
The reply relies on judgments concerning merger, antitrust and State aid files. DG COMP argues by analogy that a general presumption of non-disclosure should also apply to DMA case files because the DMA has rules on professional secrecy and access to the file.
On that basis, DG COMP says it does not need to disclose any part of any responsive document. It also says the original application did not establish an overriding public interest strong enough to outweigh the interests it invokes.
Facts established by the reply
- DG COMP states that it holds responsive documents.
- It places those documents in DMA investigation case files.
- It connects them in particular with Article 6(7) interoperability monitoring and enforcement.
- It refuses every document and all partial access.
- It gives no document list, count, titles, dates, correspondents or category-level inventory.
What it means
The key change is that the existence of responsive material in DG COMP's files is no longer an assumption. The Commission's competition department says that such documents exist. What remains hidden is their number, type, contents and the positions taken by Apple and the Commission.
The reply does not answer the central question. It does not show that Apple requested an exemption, delay or staged rollout, and it does not show that the Commission blocked Siri AI. It shows that relevant exchanges or materials are held in investigative files and that DG COMP currently considers all of them confidential.
Why the refusal will be reviewed
A confirmatory application is being prepared. It will ask the Commission's Secretariat-General to review the asserted DMA-wide presumption, the absence of a document schedule or category-specific reasoning, the categorical refusal of partial access, and the assessment of the public interest in understanding how the DMA affects widely used AI functionality in the EU.
This does not assume in advance that the refusal is unlawful. EU access rights are subject to exceptions, but the applicant is entitled to require the Commission to reconsider whether those exceptions justify withholding every document and every non-sensitive part.
What happens next
The reply allows a confirmatory application within 15 working days of receipt. Based on receipt on 10 July and the Commission holiday on 21 July, the calculated deadline is 3 August 2026. On 23 July 2026 DG CONNECT said a reply was about to come after missing its extended deadline. On 27 July the Secretariat-General partially released an Apple email and position paper from the President’s Cabinet files. That release strengthens the case for document metadata and targeted partial access, but it does not disclose DG COMP’s assessment. DG CONNECT has since said that it holds no additional responsive documents beyond the DG COMP set. The DG COMP confirmatory application was filed on 27 July and awaits registration.