Dies ist eine HTML Version eines Anhanges der Informationsfreiheitsanfrage 'Access to Information Statistics'.

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
 
Brussels, 12.8.2011 
COM(2011) 492 final 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
on the application in 2010 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to 
European Parliament, Council and Commission documents 
 
 

 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
on the application in 2010 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to 
European Parliament, Council and Commission documents 
FOREWORD 
This report, drawn up pursuant to Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding 
public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents1, covers the year 
2010 and is based on statistical data which are summarised in the annex.  
These statistics reflect the number of applications and not of requested documents. In practice, 
applications may cover a single document or entire files concerning a specific procedure. 
Applications for access to documents which were publicly accessible at the time of the 
request, are not included. 
1. 
REVISION OF REGULATION (EC) NO 1049/2001 
1.1. 
The proposal for a recast of the Regulation, submitted by the Commission on 30 
April 2008, is still at first reading. The Parliament voted a report with amendments 
on 11 March 2009 but postponed the vote on the legislative resolution. After the June 
2009 elections, the new Parliament has resumed work on the Commission proposal. 
The committees for Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) and for Petitions (PETI) adopted 
their opinions on 30 November 2010 and 1 December 2010 respectively. The Civil 
Liberties committee (LIBE) has not yet voted on a new draft report. In the Council, 
the proposal has been examined at the working group level. 
1.2. 
Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the 
Commission has submitted on 21 March 2011 a new proposal with a view to 
adapting Regulation 1049/2001 to the requirements of the Treaty of Lisbon. This 
proposal aims at extending the institutional scope of the Regulation to all the 
European Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, with some restrictions as 
regards the European Court of Justice, the European Central Bank and the European 
Investment Bank, in accordance with Article 15(3) of the consolidated version of the 
Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. 
2. 
REGISTERS AND INTERNET SITES 
2.1. 
In 2010, 18661 new documents were added to the register of Commission documents 
(see table in annex). 
2.2. 
According to Article 17 (1) of Regulation 1049/2001 the Commission has to provide 
in its annual reports the number of documents in its possession which are “sensitive” 
                                                 

OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43 
EN 
1  
 
EN 

 
in the meaning of Article 9(1) of the Regulation2 and have therefore not been 
recorded in the register. The Commission's public register covers documents of the 
COM, C, OJ, PV and SEC series. In 2010 no sensitive documents were created or 
received by the Commission, that would fall within one of these categories of 
documents.  
2.3. 
The table below shows the statistics for 2010 on consultation of the Openness and 
Access to Documents website on EUROPA. 
 
Number of visitors 
Number of sessions 
Pages viewed 
Total 
48.557 
61.308 
452.695 
Monthly 
4046 
5109 
37725 
average 
3. 
COOPERATION WITH THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATION 
The inter-institutional committee set up pursuant to Art. 15(2) of the Regulation was 
not convened during 2010. The three institutions (European Parliament, Council and 
Commission) maintained regular contacts at the administrative level with a view to 
ensure a consistent application of the Regulation. 
4. 
ANALYSIS OF ACCESS APPLICATIONS 
4.1. 
2010 has seen a significant increase of the number of initial applications made 
under Regulation 1049/2001 (6127 applications compared with 5055 in 2009, i.e 
21% more). 
4.2. 
The number of substantive decisions on confirmatory applications issued during 
2010 remained stable: 122 decisions of substance in 2010 against 120 in 2009. The 
total number of responses to confirmatory applications was 152. The additional 30 
cases have been closed without a formal decision under Regulation 1049/2001. They 
concern either applications which were devoid of purpose, or requests which were 
handled under another, more appropriate legal basis, e.g. under Regulation 45/2001 
on personal data protection as regards requests for access to the applicant's own 
personal data. The number of confirmatory applications received increased from 140 
in 2009 to 181 in 2010. The difference between the number of confirmatory 
applications received and the number of decisions issued is reflected in the number 
of cases pending at the end of the year (68).  
4.3. 
Competition policy comes first on the list of domains of interest with 9.07% of initial 
applications, followed closely by other major EU policy areas, such as home and 
                                                 

"Documents originating from the institutions or the agencies established by them, from Member States, 
third countries or International Organisations, classified as "TRÈS SECRET/TOP SECRET", 
"SECRET" or "CONFIDENTIEL" in accordance with the rules of the institution concerned, which 
protect essential interests of the European Union or of one or more of its Member States in the areas 
covered by Article 4(1)(a), notably public security, defence and military matters" (Article 9(1)).  
EN 
2  
 
EN 

 
justice affairs, transport and energy, the internal market, taxation and customs union, 
health and consumer protection, environment and enterprise policy. 
4.4. 
The main categories of applicants remain the academic world, accounting for 23.24% 
of initial applications, law firms with 10.69 % and civil society (NGO's, interest 
groups) with 8.18% of the total number of applications. For 32.68 % of the 
applications, the socio-professional profile is undefined. 
4.5. 
The geographical breakdown of initial applications also remained very similar to 
previous years. However, whereas for obvious reasons the largest proportion of 
applications, namely 17.95%, came from persons or bodies established in Belgium, 
an almost equal proportion of applications (16.62%) originated from Germany. None 
of the other Member States, exceeded 10% of applications, the largest numbers 
coming from the highly-populated Member States, i.e. France, Italy, Spain, the 
United Kingdom and the Netherlands, which together accounted for 36.45% of the 
applications. The share of applications from the new Member States slightly 
increased with 4.23% of applications originating from the Czech Republic and 2.76% 
from Poland. 
5. 
APPLICATION OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT OF ACCESS 
5.1. 
The percentage of initial applications which were fully granted remained in 2010 
above 80% (82,16%), while partial access was granted in 5,37% of initial 
applications. In 82.16% of cases (compared with 84.23% in 2009) the documents 
were disclosed in full, while in 5.37% of cases (compared with 4.11% in 2009) 
partial access was granted. This means that as in 2009, the percentage of applications 
that were refused in the first instance in full (for various reasons) stabilised around 
12%. 
5.2. 
After a decrease in 2009, the percentage of decisions confirming the initial position 
show a return to a level comparable to the one of 2008 (50% in 2010, against 48.08% 
in 2008 and only 22.50% in 2009). 
Also the percentage of cases in which access was granted in full after an initial 
refusal returned to a level similar to 2008 (15.57% in 2010 against 50% in 2009 and 
18.59% in 2008). On the other hand, the percentage of cases in which partial access 
was granted after an initial refusal, increased noticeably (34.43% in 2010, as against 
27.50% in 2009). 
5.3. 
The two main reasons for refusing an initial application continued to be: 
– 
the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits (third 
indent of Article 4(2)), with a slight decrease compared to 2009 (26.63% of 
refusals instead of 27.61% in 2009); 
– 
the protection of the Commission's decision-making process (Article 4(3)), 
with a percentage of 16.80% for cases where the decision had still to be taken 
and 9.66 % for those concerning opinions for internal use, totalling 26.42% of 
refusals (compared with a total of 25.61% in 2009). 
EN 
3  
 
EN 

 
The percentage of refusals based on the protection of commercial interests slightly 
decreased in comparison with the previous year amounting to 11.84% (instead of 
13.99% in 2009). 
5.4. 
The main grounds for confirming a refusal of access were: 
– 
the protection of the purpose of investigations (32% compared with 25.91% in 
2009); 
– 
the protection of commercial interests (16.67% compared with 17.52% in 
2009); 
– 
the protection of the Commission's decision-making process, with a percentage 
of 11.33% for cases where the decision had still to be taken and 8% for those 
concerning opinions for internal use, totalling 19.33% of refusals (compared 
with a total of 26.64% in 2009). 
6. 
COMPLAINTS TO THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN 
6.1. 
In 2010 the Ombudsman closed the following 23 complaints against the 
Commission's handling of requests for access to documents: 
1 case closed without finding any form of maladministration 
2953/2008/FOR  
13 cases closed with a critical and/or a further remark 
3699/2006/ELB 
355/2007/TN(FOR) 
671/2007/PB 
2502/2007/RT 
3163/2007/BEH 
676/2008/RT3 
1039/2008/FOR 
1438/2008/DK 
1202/2009/GG 
1207/2009/GG 
1302/2009/TS 
100/2010/GG 
465/2010/FOR 
9 cases closed without further action 
301/2008/IP 
2219/2008/(JMA)MHZ
2643/2008(TN)RT  3052/2008(BB)FOR 
966/2009/JMA 
2647/2009/IP 
172/2010/ANA 
1195/2010/OV 
1357/2010/MHZ 
6.2. 
In the course of the year the Ombudsman opened 22 new inquiries where access to 
documents was either the main or a subsidiary part of the complaint. 
7. 
JUDICIAL REVIEW 
                                                 

This case has been also subject to a special report from the European Ombudsman. 
EN 
4  
 
EN 

 
2010 was a very intensive year as regards new case law4. 
7.1. 
The Court of Justice delivered four judgments on appeals in 2010:  
C-362/08 P Internationaler Hilfsfonds v 
C-139/07 P Commission v Technische 
Commission, judgment of 26/1/2010 
Glaswerke Ilmenau, judgment of 
29/6/2010 (TGI) 
C-28/08 P Commission v Bavarian Lager,  Joined cases C-514/07P, C-528/07 P,  
judgment of 29/6/2010 
C- 532/07 P, API, Sweden and 
Commission
, judgment of 21/9/2010 
These four judgments provided important clarifications in relation to the 
interpretation of both substantive and procedural aspects of Regulation 1049/2001.  
Concerning the substantive aspects, in the two judgments handed down on 29 June 
2010 (Bavarian Lager and TGI), the Court of Justice clarified the interpretation of 
the exceptions provided for under Article 4(1)(b) and under Article 4(2) 3rd indent of 
Regulation 1049/2001. In API judgment the Court of Justice interpreted the 
exception of Article 4(2) 2nd indent.  
In Bavarian Lager, the Court of Justice ruled that, where a public access request is 
made to documents containing personal data, the provisions of the Data Protection 
Regulation become applicable in their entirety, including the provision requiring the 
recipient of personal data to establish the need for their disclosure and the provision 
which confers on the data subject the right to object at any time, on compelling 
legitimate grounds relating to his or her particular situation, to the processing of data 
relating to him or her.  
In the TGI judgment the Court of Justice held that documents pertaining to the 
Commission's administrative files relating to State aid investigations are covered by 
a general presumption that their disclosure would in principle undermine the 
protection of the purpose of investigations. The State aid Regulation does not lay 
down any right of access to the file for interested parties. If they were able to obtain 
access, on the basis of Regulation 1049/2001, the system for State aid review would 
be called into question. The Court further ruled that this presumption can be rebutted 
if the applicant demonstrates that a requested document is not "covered by that 
presumption" or that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. 
In API, the Court of Justice formulated a presumption of inaccessibility of pleadings 
submitted by an institution to the EU courts before the closure of the judicial 
proceedings. Similarly to the logic used in TGI decision, this interpretation of the 
exception relating to court proceedings was deduced from the legal framework 
governing court proceedings and from the absence of access rights for the public as 
regards judicial activities.  
Finally, as concerns Internationaler Hilfsfonds, the Court clarified that a new 
application for access to a document which was previously refused can be introduced 
                                                 

For details of each case referred to below, see http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en 
EN 
5  
 
EN 

 
at any time and that the institution concerned is obliged in such case to analyse 
whether the refusal remains justified in the light of a change of legal or factual 
circumstances which could have occurred in the meantime.  
7.2. 
As for the General Court, it has handed down five judgments concerning 
Commission's decisions:  
Joined cases T-355/04 et 
T-237/05, Editions Odile 
T-111/07, Agrofert v 
T-446/04, Co-Frutta 
Jacob SAS v Commission
Commission, judgment 
Soc.coop. v Commission,  judgment of 9.6.2010 
of 7.7.2010 
judgment of 19.1.2010 
T-474/08, D. Umbach v 
Joined cases T-494/08 to T-
 
Commission, judgment 
500/08 and T-509/08, 
of 21.10.2010 
Ryanair v Commission, 
judgment of 10.12.2010 
In two cases concerning access to the Commission's investigation files in the field of 
merger control, Editions Odile Jacob and Agrofert, the Commission's decisions 
under Regulation 1049/2001 have been annulled by the General Court essentially on 
grounds of lack of individual and concrete examination of the documents5.  
In the Ryanair cases, the General Court followed the judgment of the Court of Justice 
in TGI and dismissed the applications.  
In the remaining two cases the Commission's decisions under Regulation 1049/2001 
have been upheld by the General Court. 
Likewise, in the judgment of 21.10.2010, the application was dismissed in case T-
439/08, Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA, where the Commission was 
one of the defending parties, although the author of the challenged decision was 
EACEA. 
Finally, three further cases have to be mentioned which have been removed from the 
register following the withdrawal by the applicant: 
T-245/09, Shell Hellas v 
T-251/09, Soc. des Pétroles  T-170/03, BAT v 
Commission, order of 
Shell v Comission, order of 
Commission, order of 
5.1.2010  
5.1.2010
6.9.2010 
 
7.3. 
14 new cases were brought in 2010 against Commission decisions under Regulation 
(EC) No 1049/2001.  
T-17/10, Gerald 
T-36/10, Internationaler 
T-120/10, ClientEarth 
Steinberg v Commission 
Hilfsfonds e.V. v 
and Others v 
 
Commission 
Commission 
                                                 

See also Section 7.4 of the present Report 
EN 
6  
 
EN 

 
T-167/10, Evropaïki 
T-180/10, Nickel Institute v  T-181/10, Reagens SpA v 
Dynamiki v Commission 
Commission 
Commission 
T-267/10, Land Wien v 
T-291/10, Anne Martin v 
T-300/10, International 
Commission 
Commission 
Hilfsfonds e.V. v 
Commission
 
T-301/10, Sophie in 't 
T-359/10, Ecologistas en 
T-395/10, Stichting 
Veld v Commission 
Acción-CODA v 
Corporate Europe 
Commission 
Observatory v 
Commission
 
T-449/10, ClientEarth 
T-511/10, Evropaïki 
and Others v Commission  Dynamiki v Commission 
7.4. 
Also, three new appeals have been brought to the Court of Justice against judgments 
of the General Court. 
Appeals lodged by the Commission (see section 7.2. above): 
C-404/10P, Commission v Editions 
C-477/10P, Commission v Agrofert 
Odile Jacob SAS, Lagardère SCA 
Holding a.s., other parties Sweden, 
Finland, Denmark, Polski Koncern 
Naftowy Orlen SA
 
Appeal lodged by the applicant at first instance: 
C-609/10P, Dieter C. Umbach v Commission 
 
8. 
CONCLUSIONS 
8.1. 
In 2010, there was again a significant increase in the volume of access requests. 
While in 2009 the number remained at the same level as in the previous year, at 
around 5,000, more than 6,000 requests were made in 2010. Despite this 20% 
increase, the ratio of disclosure remains high: four out of five requests receive a 
positive reply. It is noteworthy that, in ten years time, the number of access requests 
has risen from 500 to 6,000 per year. Given the overall volume of requests, the 
number of confirmatory applications, complaints to the Ombudsman and applications 
to the Court remains very modest.  
Even if the share of citizens has increased, most applications for access are still made 
by the academic sector, by NGO's, interest groups and law firms. Many of these 
requests cover infringement proceedings, antritrust, merger, State aid or antidumping 
cases. As in the previous years, requests for access concern mainly the Commission's 
role in enforcing EU law, where transparency must be balanced against other 
legitimate interests, in accordance with the applicable rules. As regards Commission 
initiatives for new legislation, there is already a high degree of transparency, as many 
documents are made public pro-actively. 
EN 
7  
 
EN 

 
8.2. 
Ten years after the Regulation was adopted, its implementation has led to a 
consolidated administrative practice with regard to the citizen's right of access to 
Commission documents. Through the case law, the Court of Justice and the General 
Court have significantly contributed to this consolidation. Therefore, the 
Commission remains convinced that the revision of the Regulation should build on 
what has been achieved in the past ten years.  
EN 
8  
 
EN 

 
 
ANNEX 
Statistics relating to the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 
1. 
NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS ENTERED IN THE REGISTER 
 
COM 
C 
OJ 
PV 
SEC 
Total 
2010 
2088 
12630 
127 
92 
3724 
18661 
INITIAL REQUESTS 
2. 
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AND HANDLED 
 
20086 
2009 
2010 
Applications received 

5401 
6361
Replies given7 8  

6636 
7148
Replies given based on 
5197
5055 
6127
Regulation 1049/2001 
3. 
RESULT  
2008 
2009 
2010 
 
 
No 

No 

No 

4314 
82.68 
4258 
84.23 
5034 
82.16 
Access granted 
703 13.99 589 11.65 764 12.47 
Access refused 
180 
3.33 
208 
4.11 
329 
5.37 
Partial access 
5197 100 5055 100 6127 100 
total 
                                                 

Please note, that for 2008 the Commission cannot provide the comparable statistical data corresponding 
to the categories of "Applications received" and "Replies given" for either initial nor confirmatory 
requests; 

Please note that a single request can concern several documents and can consequently give rise to 
several different replies; 

Please note that the category "Replies given" includes the replies given outside the scope of Regulation 
1049/2001, for example replies given under Regulation 45/2001; 
EN 
9  
 
EN 

 
CONFIRMATORY REQUESTS 
4. 
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AND HANDLED 
 
2008 
2009 
2010 
Applications received 
 - 
140 
181 
Replies to applications  

134 
152 
Decisions on confirmatory 
156 120 122 
applications based on Regulation 
1049/2001 
5. 
RESULT  
2008 
2009 
2010 
 
No % No % No % 
Confirmation 
75 
48.08 
27 
22.50 
61 
50 
Partial 
revision 52 33.33 
33 27.50 
42 34.43 
Full revision 
29 
18.59 
60 
50 
19 
15.57 
 
total 156 
100 
120  
100 
122 
100 
 
(1) BREAKDOWN OF REFUSALS BY EXCEPTION APPLIED (%) 
6. 
INITIAL REQUESTS 
 
2008 2009 2010 
4.1.a. 1st indent – Protection of public security 
0.18 
1.36 
1.94 
4.1.a. 2nd indent Protection of defence and military 
0.82 0.54 0.14 
matters 
4.1.a. 3rd indent - Protection of international 
10.24 
8.17 
9.83 
relations 
4.1.a. 4th indent – Protection of the financial, 
2.9 2.09 2.15 
monetary or economic policy 
4.1.b. Protection of privacy and the integrity of the 
5.98 
6.99 
9.76 
individual 
4.2.1st indent - Protection of commercial interests 
14.4 13.99 11.84 
4.2 2nd indent - Protection of court proceedings and 
6.52 
9.81 
7.32 
legal advice 
4.2 3rd indent - Protection of the purpose of 
26.63 27.61 26.63 
inspections, investigations and audits 
4.3 subparagraph 1– Decision-making process, no 
13.5 
17.80 
16.80 
decision yet taken 
4.3. subparagraph 2- Decision making process, 
decision already taken: opinions for internal use as 
15.22 7.81  9.62 
part of deliberations and preliminary consultations 
4.5. Refusal by Member State/third author 
3.62 
3.81 
3.94 
total
100 100 
100 
EN 
10  
 
EN 

 
7. 
CONFIRMATORY REQUESTS 
 
2008 2009  2010 
4.1.a. 1st indent – Protection of public security 
0.42 
2.55 
2,67 
4.1.a. 2nd indent - Protection of defence and 
0.42 0  0 
military matters 
4.1.a. 3rd indent - Protection of international 
5.91 
4.38 
6,67 
relations 
4.1.a. 4th indent – Protection of the financial, 
0.84 3.28  3,33 
monetary or economic policy 
4.1.b. - Protection of privacy and the integrity of the 
5.06 
14.23 
9,33 
individual 
4.2. 1st indent - Protection of commercial interests 
24.89 
17.52 
16.67 
4.2. 2nd indent - Protection of court proceedings 
3.8 
5.47 
10 
and legal advice 
4.2. 3rd indent - Protection of the purpose of 
27.85 25.91  32 
inspections, investigations and audits 
4.3 subparagraph 1 – Decision-making process, no 
17.3 
12.77 
11,33 
decision yet taken 
4.3. subparagraph 2 - Decision making process, 
decision already taken: opinions for internal use as 
12.24 13.87 

part of deliberations and preliminary consultations 
4.5. Refusal by Member State 
1.27 


total
100 100  100 
 
BREAKDOWN OF REQUESTS 
8. 
ACCORDING TO SOCIAL AND OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE OF APPLICANTS (%) 
 
2008 2009 2010 
Academics 
31.03 
21.29 
23.24 
Public authorities (other than the EU 
14.19 7.33 13.56 
institutions) 
Lawyers 
11.01 
10.24 
10.69 
Other EU institutions 
6.3 3.77 8.32 
Civil society (interest groups, industry, 
18.26 
9.85 
8.18 
NGOs. etc.) 
Journalists 
2.46 2.02 3.35 
Not specified 
16.75 
45.5 
32.68 
total
100 100 100 
 
EN 
11  
 
EN 

 
9. 
ACCORDING TO GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN (%) 
  
2008 2009 
2010 
Belgium 
18.93 
18.26 
17.95 
Germany 
16.89 16.61 
16.62 
France 

8.01 
9.05 
Italy 
8.54 7.18 
8.85 
United Kingdom 
6.34 
6.23 
7.24 
Spain 
5.29 6.27 
6.86 
Netherlands 
4.83 
5.45 
4.43 
Czech Republic 
1.26 1.11 
4.23 
Poland 
2.57 
2.86 
2.76 
Sweden 
1.44 2.13 
2.18 
Austria 
2.11 
1.98 
2.08 
Luxembourg 
2.61 1.71 
1.99 
Denmark 
2.45 
1.63 
2.02 
Ireland 
1.28 0.72 
1.49 
Greece 
1.93 
1.06 
1.22 
Portugal 
1.5 1.61 
1.16 
Romania 
0.58 
0.93 
1.11 
Finland 
1.08 0.78 
0.81 
Hungary 
0.86 
0.70 
0.89 
Bulgaria 
0.36 0.56 
0.69 
Slovakia 
0.24 
0.50 
0.56 
Slovenia 
0.32 0.39 
0.52 
Lithuania 
0.62 
0.35 
0.31 
Malta 
0.2 0.30 
0.22 
Cyprus 
0.22 
0.20 
0.20 
Latvia 
0.28 0.06 
0.13 
Estonia 
0.1 
0.17 
0.09 
Non-EU European countries 
2.12 0.83 
0.50 
North America 
1.16 
0.37 
0.11 
Australia and New Zealand 
0.14 0.07 
0.09 
Africa 
0.04 
0.20 
0.05 
South America 
0.06 0.09 
0.05 
Asia 
0.46 
0.19 
0.04 
Not specified 
5.24 10.57 
3.49 
total
100 
100 
100 
EN 
12  
 
EN 

 
10. 
ACCORDING TO AREA OF INTEREST (%) 
Directorate-General / Service 
2008 2009 2010 
SG – Secretariat General 
9.38 
10.10 
11.64 
COMP – Competition 
7.18 7.03 9.07 
JUST - Justice + HOME - Home Affairs (former JLS) 
6.69 
7.74 
8.38 
MOVE – Mobility and Transport + ENER – Energy (former TREN) 
8.18 8.02 7.14 
MARKT – Internal market 
7.28 
7.27 
6.14 
ENV – Environment + CLIMA – Climate Action 
6.07 8.37 6.07 
SANCO – Health and Consumer Protection 
5.74 
4.69 
5.44 
TAXUD – Taxation and Customs Union 
5.17 6.20 5.30 
ENTR – Enterprise 
5.91 
4.55 
4.48 
RELEX – External Relations 
2.39 2.25 3.29 
AGRI – Agriculture 
3.6 
4.07 
3.15 
REGIO – Regional Policy 
3.42 3.67 3.06 
TRADE – Trade 
2.72 
2.08 
3.06 
DEVCO – Development and Cooperation-EuropeAid (former DEV + 
3.22 2.75 2.77 
AIDCO)  
EMPL – Employment and Social Affairs 
3.72 
3.28 
2.74 
SJ – Legal Service 
1.75 1.80 2.68 
ECFIN – Economic and Financial Affairs 
1.23 
1.87 
2.32 
HR - Human Resources and Security (former ADMIN) + OIB + OIL - 
Offices for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels and Luxembourg 
4.54 
+ PMO – Office for Administration and Payment of Individual 
3.15 2.29 
 
Entitlements 
RTD – Research, JRC – Joint Research Centre 
1.36 
1.74 
1.82 
INFSO – Information Society 
2.3 2.29 1.79 
ELARG – Enlargement 
1.5 
1.74 
1.47 
BUDG – Budget 
1.07 1.07 1.24 
EAC – Education and Culture 
1.4 
1.44 
1.13 
COMM – Communication 
0.85 0.41 0.74 
MARE - Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
1.13 
0.79 
0.66 
DGT – Translation 
0.32 0.13 0.36 
ESTAT – Eurostat 
0.22 
0.11 
0.31 
CAB – Commissioners' Cabinets 
0.43 0.30 0.28 
ECHO – Humanitarian Office 
0.15 
0.24 
0.28 
OLAF – European Anti-Fraud Office 
0.62 0.24 0.27 
OPOCE – Publications Office 
0.05 
0.19 
0.19 
EPSO – Recruitment Office 
0.23 0.26 0.14 
IAS – Internal Audit Service 
0.07 
0.02 
0.09 
DIGIT – Informatics 
0 0.07 
0.09 
SCIC – Interpretation 
0.02 
0.02 
0.08 
BEPA – Bureau of European Policy Advisers 
0.07 0.06 0.03 
total
100 100 100 
 
EN 
13  
 
EN 

Document Outline