This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Study: "The economics of online news aggregation and neighbouring rights for news publishers"'.


 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
 
 
Brussels, 20.3.2018 
C(2018) 1828 final 
 
 
Ms Julia REDA 
Member of the European Parliament 
European Parliament 
Altiero Spinelli Building 05F158 
60, rue Wiertz 
Brussels  
Belgium 
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 2017/6751 
 

Dear Ms Reda, 
I  refer  to  your  email  registered  on  22  December  2017  by  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 
documents' ('Regulation 1049/2001').  
1.  SCOPE OF YOUR REQUEST 
By  your  initial  application,  submitted  on  9  October  2017  and  dealt  with  by  the 
Directorate-General Joint Research Centre (JRC), you requested access to all information 
related to the creation, assignment, preparation or conduction of the study entitled ‘The 
economics of online news aggregation and neighbouring rights for news publishers’. You 
specified that this may include emails, notes, presentations, files, letters and memos sent 
to and from the authors of the study as well as between JRC and other parts of the 
Commission regarding this study.  

                                                 

Official Journal L 345 of 29.12.2001, p. 94. 
 
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 

You specified that if a preliminary study or parts of the study have been written already, 
you wanted these parts to be included in the request. You added that this request also 
extends to information that is not considered important enough for filing or archiving. 
 
The JRC replied to your request on 20 December 2017. It granted wide partial access to 
the latest draft version of the requested study, explaining that it is a draft scientific paper 
which is still subject to modifications. The JRC also specified that the content of the draft 
study  only  expresses  the  views  of  its  author  and  not  the  views  of  the  European 
Commission.    The  JRC  granted  wide  partial  access  also  to  three  further  e-mails.  The 
partial refusal only concerned personal data of non-senior staff of the Commission and 
was based on Article 4(1)(b) (protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual) of 
Regulation 1049/2001.  
 
Through  your  confirmatory  application,  you  contest  the  initial  reply  provided  by  JRC, 
claiming that all information falling within the scope of your  request was not released. 
You  do  not  contest  the  non-disclosure  of  personal  data.  Therefore,  the  scope  of  your 
confirmatory application is considered to cover only your claim relating to the complete 
identification of documents falling within the scope of your request.  
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 concerned at the initial stage. 
 
Following  your  confirmatory  application,  the  Commission  has  carried  out  a  renewed, 
thorough search for possible documents falling under the scope of your request.  
 
Based on this renewed search, the Commission has identified the early preliminary draft 
of the study attached to the e-mail of 25 October 2016, Ares(2017)6256585. Please note 
that this is without prejudice to any documents that may be identified in the framework of 
the other access-to-documents requests you have lodged with Directorates-General other 
than JRC and which are currently under examination.  
 
Wide  partial  access  was  granted  by the  JRC  to  the  e-mail  of  25  October  2016,  subject 
only to the redaction of personal data, in accordance with Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 
1049/2001.  
 
I  am  pleased  to  inform  you  that  partial  access  is  granted  to  the  early  preliminary  draft 
attached  to  the  e-mail  of  25  October  2016.  The  limited  redactions  are  justified  on  the 
basis  of  the  exceptions  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)(b)  (protection  of  privacy  and  the 
integrity of the individual) and Article 4(3), first and second subparagraphs (protection of 
the decision-making process) of Regulation 1049/2001, for the reasons set out below. 
 
 
 


2.1.  Protection of the decision-making process 
Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides that: 
[a]ccess to a document, drawn up by an institution for internal use or received by an 
institution, which relates to a matter where the decision has not been taken by the 
institution, shall be refused if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the 
institution's decision-making process, unless there is an overriding public interest in 
disclosure. 

Access to a document containing opinions for internal use as part of deliberations and 
preliminary consultations within the institution concerned shall be refused even after the 
decision has been taken if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the 
institution's decision-making process, unless there is an overriding public interest in 
disclosure. 

The limited redactions in the draft study, which was attached to the e-mail of 25 October 
2016, concern the personal opinions of the scientist who prepared this early preliminary 
draft.  The  draft,  which  was  destined  for  further  preliminary  consultations  within  the 
Commission,  was  meant  exclusively  for  internal  use,  and  contained  the  following 
disclaimer on the first page please do not quote or circulate. This early preliminary draft 
had  to  undergo  modifications,  following  Commission  internal  discussions,  to  comply 
with  the  expected  quality  standards  for  robustness  of  a  scientific  study,  as  the  JRC 
implements a quality control system including an internal review. Although partial access 
is granted to this document, disclosure of the withheld parts thereof, which are opinions 
for  internal  use  as  part  of  deliberations  and  preliminary  consultations  within  the 
Commission,  would  seriously  undermine  the  Commission's  ongoing  decision-making 
process regarding this study.  
 
In  order  to  accomplish  their  tasks  properly  for  this  ongoing  process,  the  Commission 
services should be allowed to finalise their work on the draft study in serenity, without 
risking that the public would confuse the preliminary opinions expressed by a particular 
scientist in an early preliminary version of the study with the final Commission decision 
concerning the study. Public disclosure, at this stage, would also create confusion as to 
the  possible  position  of  other  Commission  services  or  experts  and  create  false 
expectations  as  to  the  final  position  of  the  Commission  decision  regarding  this  study, 
thus  seriously  undermining  the  Commission's  final  decision,  which  is  still  to  be  taken. 
Ensuring the serenity of internal discussions and exchanges on drafts is essential for the 
JRC’s  ability  to  freely  develop  studies  and  for  ensuring  good  quality  work.  Public 
disclosure  of  the  withheld  opinions,  at  least  at  this  stage,  would  seriously  damage  the 
Commission's decision-making process relating to the finalisation of the study, its quality 
and the effectiveness of its conclusion.  
Against this background, I consider that public disclosure of the withheld opinions in the 
early  preliminary  draft  of  the  study,  which  was  attached  to  the  e-mail  of  25  October 
2016,  would  seriously  undermine  the  Commission's  decision-making  process  in  the 
meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 pertaining to this file.  


2.2.  Protection of privacy and integrity  
Article  4(1)(b)  of  Regulation  1049/2001  provides  that access to documents is refused 
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.  

In  its  judgment  in  the Bavarian Lager case2,  the  Court  of  Justice  ruled  that  when  a 
request  is  made  for  access  to  documents  containing  personal  data,  Regulation  (EC) 
No. 45/20013 (hereinafter the 'Data Protection Regulation') becomes fully applicable. In 
this  Judgment  the  Court  stated  that  Article  4(1)(b)  requires that any undermining of 
privacy and the integrity of the individual must always be examined and assessed in 
conformity with the legislation of the Union concerning the protection of personal data, 
and in particular with Regulation No 45/20014. 

Article 2(a) of the Data Protection Regulation provides that 'personal data' shall mean 
any information relating to an identified or identifiable person […]. 
As  the  Court  of 
Justice confirmed in Case C-465/00 (Rechnungshof)5, there is no reason of principle to 
justify excluding activities of a professional […] nature from the notion of private life.  

The requested document contains the name, job title or other details of the author of the 
study allowing his identification. This information clearly constitutes personal data in the 
sense of Article 2(a) of Data Protection Regulation 45/2001.  
Pursuant  to  Article  8(b)  of  Regulation  45/2001,  the  Commission  can  only  transmit 
personal data to a recipient subject to Directive 95/46/EC 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.6   
Only if both conditions are fulfilled and the processing constitutes lawful processing in 
accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of  Regulation 45/2001, can the processing 
(transfer) of personal data occur. 
                                                 
2   Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 June 2010, European Commission v The Bavarian Lager Co. 
Ltd, Case C-28/08P, EU:C:2010:378, paragraph 59. 
3    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, Official Journal L 8 of 12.1.2001. 
4   Paragraph 59. 
5   Judgment of the Court of 20 May 2003 in joined cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01, preliminary 
rulings  in  proceedings  between  Rechnungshof and Österreichischer Rundfunk,  EU:C:2003:294, 
paragraph 73. 
6   Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 June 2010, Bavarian Lager, quoted above, paragraphs 77-78. 


In  the  ClientEarth  case,  the  Court  of  Justice  ruled  that  the institution  does  not have  to 
examine  ex officio  the  existence  of  a  need  for  transferring  personal  data7.  In  the  same 
ruling,  the  Court  stated  that  if  the  applicant  has  not  established  a  need  to  obtain  the 
personal data requested, the institution does not have to examine the absence of prejudice 
to the person's legitimate interests8.  
 
In your confirmatory application, you do not put forward any arguments to establish the 
necessity of, or any particular interest in obtaining access to the requested personal data.  
Furthermore,  there  are  reasons  to  assume  that  the  legitimate  interests  of  the  individual 
concerned  would  be  prejudiced  by  disclosure  of  the  personal  data  reflected  in  the 
document, as there is a real and non-hypothetical risk that such public disclosure would 
harm its privacy and subject it to unsolicited external contacts.  
Consequently,  I  conclude  that,  pursuant  to  Article  4(1)(b)  of  Regulation  1049/2001, 
access cannot be granted to the personal data included in the requested document, as the 
need to obtain access thereto has not been substantiated, and there is no reason to think 
that  the  legitimate  interests  of  the  author  would  not  be  prejudiced  by  disclosure  of  the 
personal data concerned. 
I would also like to point out that Article 4(1)(b) has an absolute character and does not 
envisage the possibility to demonstrate the existence of an overriding public interest. 
3.  OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSURE 
The exception laid down in Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 must be waived if there 
is an overriding public interest in disclosure. Such an interest must, firstly, be public and, 
secondly, outweigh the harm caused by disclosure. 
In  your  confirmatory  application  you  do  not  claim  an  overriding  public  interest  in 
disclosure of the requested documents in your case.  
I take the view that the public interest in protecting the Commission's internal reflections 
during its decision-making process is not outweighed by any possible public interest in 
transparency in this case.  
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. 
 
                                                 
7   Case C-615/13P, Judgment of the Court of Justice 16 July 2015 ClientEarth v EFSA, EU:C:2015:489, 
paragraph 47. 
8   Ibid, paragraph 47-48. 



4.     MEANS OF REDRESS 
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the means of redress available against this 
decision. You may either bring proceedings before the General Court or file a complaint 
with  the  European  Ombudsman  under  the  conditions  specified  respectively  in  263  and 
228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
 
Yours sincerely, 
 
 
For the Commission 
Martin SELMAYR 
Secretary-General 

 
 
 
 
 
Enclosure: (1) 


Document Outline