Dies ist eine HTML Version eines Anhanges der Informationsfreiheitsanfrage 'Car industry lobbyists, CARS21 and Better Regulation - confirmatory application'.


 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
 
 
Brussels, 28.4.2016 
C(2016) 2730 final 
 
Mr Olivier Hoedeman 
Corporate Europe Observatory 
Rue d'Edimbourg 26 
       Bruxelles 
1050  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Belgique 
 
Copy by email: 
Ask+request-2715-
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx  

DECISION OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION PURSUANT 
TO ARTICLE 4 OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES TO REGULATION (EC) N° 1049/20011 
Subject: 
Your confirmatory application for access to documents under 
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - GESTDEM 2016/348 

Dear Mr Hoedeman, 
I refer to your e-mail of 21 March 2016, registered on 22 March 2016, in which you 
submit a confirmatory application in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 
1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission 
documents2 ('Regulation 1049/2001').  
1. 
SCOPE OF YOUR REQUEST 
In your initial application of 27 January 2016, you requested access to: 
1.  minutes and other reports of meetings between European Commission officials 
and representatives of Volkswagen, Renault, Volvo, Fiat, Ford, ACEA and other 
car companies and car industry lobby groups, in which CARS21 and/or Better 
Regulation was discussed (between January 2004 and June 2006 as well as 
between January 2010 and December 2012)
; 
                                                 

Official Journal L 345 of 29.12.2001, p. 94. 
2    Official Journal L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43. 
 
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/ 
E-mail: xxxxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx  
 

2.  all correspondence (including emails) between European Commission officials 
and representatives of Volkswagen, Renault, Volvo, Fiat, Ford, ACEA and other 
car companies and car industry lobby groups, in which CARS21 and/or Better 
Regulation was discussed (between January 2004 and June 2006 as well as 
between January 2010 and December 2012)

In its initial reply of 9 March 2016, the Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, 
Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW): 
−  granted wide partial access to six documents falling under part 2 of your request, 
subject only to the redaction of personal data, based on the exception of Article 
4(1)(b) (protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual) of 
Regulation 1049/2001; 
−  did not identify any document as falling under part 1 of your request.  
DG GROW based its initial reply on the following interpretation of the scope of your 
request: 
−  as regards part 1, it understood 'European Commission officials' to exclude the 
Commissioner for DG Enterprise and Industry
−  as regards part 2, it understood 'meetings between European Commission officials 
and representatives of' to mean 'bilateral meetings'
Through your confirmatory application you request a review of this position. In 
particular, you contest: 
−  the redaction of names of both Commission officials and car industry 
representatives, as [t]he disclosure of the names is necessary in order to assess 
whether these Commission officials and car industry representatives since went 
through the revolving door into roles that might involve conflicts of interest

−  the interpretation of 'European Commission officials' as excluding the 
Commissioner for DG Enterprise and Industry, as it is common sense to include 
everyone in the Commission in the category 'European Commission officials'

−  the interpretation of 'meetings between European Commission officials and 
representatives of' as bilateral meetings, as [t]here is nothing in [the applicant's 
initial]  request that indicates that it should not cover meetings with several or 
many car companies and lobby groups present
.  
2. 
ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER REGULATION 1049/2001 
When assessing a confirmatory application for access to documents submitted pursuant 
to Regulation 1049/2001, the Secretariat-General conducts a fresh review of the reply 
given by the Directorate-General or service concerned at the initial stage. 
Following this review, I am pleased to inform you that limited wider partial access is 
granted to documents nr. 1 – 43, including the name of a (high-level) car industry 
                                                 
3   The numbering of documents was taken over from the list of documents of the initial reply. 


representative4 requested by you. None of the exceptions of Article 4 of Regulation 
1049/2001 is applicable to these parts of the documents. Please find a copy of the four 
documents attached. 
As regards documents 5 and 6, and the refused parts of documents nr. 1 – 4, I regret to 
inform you that the decision taken by DG GROW at the initial level has to be confirmed, 
for the reasons set out below. 
Regarding the two interpretations made by DG GROW of the scope of your initial 
application, and following your specifications in your confirmatory application, please 
note that: 
−  your inclusion of the Member of the Commission responsible for Internal Market, 
Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, in the scope of part 1 of your request was 
registered as a new initial application5 and is being dealt with by DG GROW. 
Indeed, the term 'European Commission officials' does not cover Members of the 
Commission, in accordance with the Staff Regulations; 
−  as regards part 2 of your request, the reply of DG GROW indeed covered 
meetings with several or many car companies and lobby groups present, as 
specified by your confirmatory application. Solely the meetings of the CARS 216 
Sherpa and Working Groups were excluded from the scope, as these were formal 
high-level group meetings attended by a variety of different authorities and 
representatives, including from the European Parliament, Member States, car 
companies, trade unions, NGO’s, users.7  
Consequently, this decision relates to the refused parts of documents nr. 1 – 6, based on 
the exception of Article 4(1)(b) (protection of the privacy and the integrity of the 
individual) of Regulation 1049/2001. 
Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides that [t]he institutions shall refuse 
access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of 
[…] privacy 
and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community 
legislation regarding the protection of personal data

Documents nr. 1 – 6 contain names and initials of Commission officials (not forming part 
of senior management), as well as names, positions, signatures, telephone and fax 
numbers of third-party representatives. These data constitute personal data within the 
meaning of Article 2(a) of Regulation 45/20018, which defines personal data as any 
information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person 
[…]; an identifiable 
                                                 
4   Name of main representative of an external entity. 
5   Registered under number GESTDEM 2016/348. 
6   High level group for a Competitive Automotive Regulatory System for the 21st Century. For more 
information please see: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-05-11_en.htm and Official 
Journal C 280, 16.10.2010, p. 32–34. 
7   Should you be interested in receiving access to their meeting documents, please let us know and your 
request will be handled by DG GROW at the initial stage. 
8   Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on 
the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community 
institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data. 


person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to 
an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his or her physical, 
physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity

In consequence, the public disclosure of this data in the requested documents would 
constitute processing (transfer) of personal data within the meaning of Article 8(b) of 
Regulation 45/2001.  
In accordance with the Bavarian Lager ruling9, when a request is made for access to 
documents containing personal data, Regulation 45/2001 becomes fully applicable. 
According to Article 8(b) of that Regulation, personal data shall only be transferred to 
recipients if the recipient establishes the necessity of having the data transferred and if 
there is no reason to assume that the data subject's legitimate interests might be 
prejudiced. Those two conditions are cumulative.10 Only fulfilment of both conditions 
enables one to consider the processing (transfer) of personal data as compliant with the 
requirement of lawfulness provided for in Article 5 of Regulation 45/2001.  
I would also like to bring to your attention the recent judgment in the ClientEarth case, 
where the Court of Justice ruled that the Institution does not have to examine ex officio 
the existence of a need for transferring personal data11. In the same ruling, the Court 
stated that if the applicant has not established a need, the institution does not have to 
examine the absence of prejudice to the person's legitimate interests12.  
In your confirmatory application you argue that [t]he disclosure of the names is 
necessary in order to assess whether these Commission officials and car industry 
representatives since went through the revolving door into roles that might involve 
conflicts of interest
.  
Please note that with regard to Commission staff members, a sound framework has been 
established within the Commission to prevent any conflict of interests arising at any time 
during their employment13. Likewise, there are clear rules to be followed in case a 
Commission staff member leaves the service and plans to engage in a new occupational 
activity within two years of leaving14. I consider that sufficient rules are in place to 
prevent conflicts of interests during and after the service of Commission staff members. 
Furthermore, I note that you do not provide any specific reasons which would underpin 
any possible suspicion of the existence of conflict of interests regarding the individuals 
                                                 

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010, European Commission v the Bavarian 
Lager Co. Ltd.
 
10   Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010, European Commission v the Bavarian 
Lager Co. Ltd., paragraphs 77-78. 
11    Case C-615/13P, Judgment of the Court of Justice 16 July 2015 ClientEarth v EFSA, paragraph 47. 
12   Ibid.paragraphs 47-48. 
13   For example, these rules foresee already at recruitment an assessment of the existence or not of a 
conflict of interests. Please find further information on relevant rules and standards of the Commission 
on the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/admin/ethic/index_en.htm#3.  
14   E.g., if that activity is related to the work carried out during the last three years of service and might 
conflict with the legitimate interests of the Commission, the Commission can refuse permission to 
engage in that activity, or allow it subject to a number of conditions, Ibid. 


mentioned in the requested documents. Instead, you merely refer to the necessity of the 
names of the individuals being disclosed in order to make an assessment of the existence 
of conflict of interests. An argument of such a general nature, without further 
specifications, could virtually be brought forward in any situation where the names of 
individuals are withheld following a request for access-to-documents.  
Based on the above, I consider that you do not provide the required express and 
legitimate justifications or convincing arguments 
for the necessity of the data transfer.15 
Therefore, I have to conclude that the transfer of personal data through the disclosure of 
the requested documents cannot be considered as fulfilling the requirement of lawfulness 
provided for in Article 5 of Regulation 45/2001. Consequently, the use of the exception 
under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 is justified, as there is no need to publicly 
disclose the personal data included therein and it cannot be assumed that the legitimate 
rights of the data subjects concerned would not be prejudiced by such disclosure.  
Please note also that Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 does not include the 
possibility for the exception defined therein to be set aside by an overriding public 
interest. 
3. 
PARTIAL ACCESS 
In accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, I have considered the 
possibility of granting further partial access to the documents requested. However, for the 
reasons explained above, no meaningful further partial access is possible without 
undermining the interests described above. 
Consequently, I have come to the conclusion that the withheld parts are covered in their 
entirety by the invoked exception to the right of public access. 
4. 
MEANS OF REDRESS 
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the means of redress that are available 
against this decision, that is, judicial proceedings and complaints to the Ombudsman  
                                                 
15   Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010, European Commission v the Bavarian 
Lager Co. Ltd., paragraph 78. 



under the conditions specified respectively in Articles 263 and 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union. 
 
Yours sincerely, 
 
For the Commission 
Alexander ITALIANER 
Secretary-General 

 
 
 
 
Enclosures (4): 
−  Document 1: From JAMA to Mr Reichenbach (Ref. A-4744); 
−  Document 2: From ACEA to Ms Lalis (Ref. A-8650); 
−  Document 3: From JAMA to Mr Zourek (Ref. A-6375); 
−  Document 4: From Anfac to Mr Calleja (Ref. Ares(2012)1005839). 
 


Document Outline