In the ruling of Curtois and Other v Commission (Case C-632/24 P), the General Court partly sided with the applicant, raising questions about the Commission’s handling of personal data and access to specific contractual clauses. The commission appealed the decision on the basis fo three points. First, the Commission holds that the General Court misinterpreted the evidence demonstrating the necessity of sharing personal data. Second, the alleged error in the interpretation of Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, alongside Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, both of which govern personal data processing and public access to documents. Third, the Commission argues that the General Court wrongfully denied access to indemnification clauses within the contract on the basis of (a) misinterpretation of the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, (b) a failure to sufficiently justify the refusal, and (c) an additional distortion of evidence. The appeal will likely clarify the limits of data transparency and access within EU institutional practices.