From:
Sent:
22 April 2014 17:14
To:
Cc:
SG ACCES DOCUMENTS
Subject:
RE: FW: Access to Documents request
Dear
,
As I tried to explain to you this is not a matter of data protection but a matter of proper notification of
the access-to-document decision by the Commission.
It goes without saying that you data will be handled in line with the applicable rules on data protection.
In the absence of an operational system of electronic notification the European Commission has decided
to notify decisions on access-to-documents by registered mail.
Yours sincerely,
European Commission
Secretariat-General
Unit B4: Transparency
B-1049 Brussels
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 5:07 PM
To:
(SG)
Subject: Re: FW: Access to Documents request
Dear
I have explained the DP situation as clearly as I can. Before I refer this to the
Ombudsman, would you like to consult your Data Protection Officer?
You have not demonstrated at all why you "need" to send a registered postal mail
kind regards
On 22/04/14 16:54,
wrote:
Dear
,
Unfortunately the European Commission does not operate a system of
electronic notification or signature.
There is therefore clearly the functional need to notify by registered (ordinary)
mail.
Yours sincerely,
European Commission
Secretariat-General
Unit B4: Transparency
B-1049 Brussels
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:10 PM
To:
(SG)
Subject: Re: FW: Access to Documents request
Dear
thank you for your reply
As you may be aware, I am an expert in information policy, and the
questions I ask raise important points of law and policy w.r.t to
Access to Documents (and possibly 45/2001), therefore I would be
grateful for a full and official response. My questions were posed
with care, and I do not think my points have been answered
In particular, an email reply and acknowledgement of receipt by the
applicant would have no less legal validity in a Court of law than a
hand-written signature in all but extremely unlikely circumstances
(and perhaps you could give an example). Under the EU Electronic
Signature Directive, affixing my name in the signature line of an
ordinary email is a form of electronic signature (albeit neither
Qualified nor Advanced), and cannot be denied legal validity
purely because it is electronic (although the weight accorded in
case of dispute will depend on the circumstances and such technical
considerations)
The Commission's policy of sending decisions via registered mail
in not necessary for the purpose of fulfilment of the access requests
electronically. Disclosing a private address to a central office of the
Commission engages significant privacy interests, risks of mistakes
and unauthorised disclosure, and uncertainties about the finality of
purpose of the data. The Commission would have to demonstrate
that such a blanket policy was effective and proportionate to
eligible liabilities and risks occurring in cases where there is no
functional need for the postal address. This seems unlikely.
kind regards
P.S. it might be useful to pass on that there appears to be a
compatibility bug in Commission email systems interoperability
with Thunderbird|Liunux (a very common FOSS client), so that
just by hitting reply, the program believes (some malformed
HTMLL metadata?) is an attachment, and never returns from a loop
trying to find the attachment. When I truncate the orginal text
appeded in the reply (as just here) it sends normally. I will also
report this bug to the relevant DG.