The recent judgment of the General Court in Eva Kaili v Parliament and EPPO (T‑1031/23, 9 July 2025) offers a valuable reminder of a basic but often misunderstood principle: public institutions engaged in litigation must not confuse legal symmetry with institutional candour. The two are not the same—and conflating them threatens the very logic of transparency in public law.
In that case, the European Parliament refused to disclose certain administrative documents—records showing how similar past cases had been handled—on the grounds that it would unfairly favour the applicant. Since the applicant was not under a matching obligation to disclose documents helpful to the Parliament, the institution argued that releasing such material would upset the “equality of arms.”
But the General Court rejected this reasoning firmly. “[T]he Parliament cannot effectively defend itself,” it held, “by arguing that it would no longer be on an equal footing with the applicant… The Parliament, as an institution, is subject to obligations to which the applicant is not subject, including, in particular, the obligation of transparency”.
This is the key point: equality of arms ensures that both parties can argue their case fairly. It does not mean both sides must be equally burdened. It certainly does not mean that public bodies can withhold records simply because those records might help the other side. Public institutions carry special duties—especially the duty to disclose documents that go to the fairness or consistency of their own actions. This is what is meant by institutional candour: the expectation that authorities must speak plainly, disclose honestly, and accept that transparency is part of their role.
To put it simply: legal fairness does not mean the public body gets to hide things just because the private party doesn’t have the same archive. A private party does not control state records. A public institution does. If that institution has taken decisions in the past that are relevant to the case, those records are part of the factual landscape. Withholding them isn’t balance—it’s evasion.
The documents at issue in Kaili were not legal briefs or confidential opinions. They were administrative files—decisions, letters, and notes—showing how similar issues had been handled. The Parliament’s fear was not of revealing legal strategy, but of revealing patterns. And that is precisely what transparency is meant to uncover.
Legal symmetry is a procedural guarantee; it protects the right to be heard. Institutional candour is a constitutional duty; it protects the integrity of public power.
