Ceci est une version HTML d'une pièce jointe de la demande d'accès à l'information 'The 151th-180th Commission replies to confirmatory applications issued in 2019'.





 
Ref. Ares(2019)5714348 - 12/09/2019
Ref. Ares(2020)7043344 - 24/11/2020
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
 
 
Brussels, 
253 03 Chýně 
Czech Republic 
DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 4 OF THE 
IMPLEMENTING RULES TO REGULATION (EC) NO 1049/20011 
Subject: 
Your confirmatory application for access to documents under 
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - GESTDEM 2019/4127 

Dear 
 
I refer to your letter of 9 August 2019, registered on the same day, in which you 
submitted 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 (hereafter ‘Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001’).  
1. 
SCOPE OF YOUR REQUEST 
In your initial application of 31 May 2019, addressed to the Ministry of Finance of the 
Czech Republic, you requested access to the draft audit report drawn up by the European 
Commission regarding audit REGC414CZ0133 to Czech institutions.  
By letter dated 6 June 2019 (reference MF-14006/2019/9008-2), the Ministry of Finance 
of the Czech Republic referred your request to the European Commission pursuant to 
Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the document originates from the 
latter. On 18 July 2019, the European Commission registered your application under 
reference GESTDEM 2019/4127.  
In particular, the European Commission has identified the following document as falling 
under the scope of your request: 
 
Audit No REGC414CZ0133, draft report (English version), 29 May 2019, 
reference Ares(2019)3512694 (hereafter ‘the requested document’). 
                                                 

Official Journal L 345 of 29.12.2001, p. 94. 

Official Journal L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43. 
 
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 

 
In its initial reply of 1 August 2019, the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban 
Policy refused access to this document based on the exception of Article 4(2), third 
indent (protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits) of Regulation 
(EC) No 1049/2001.  
In your confirmatory application, you request a review of this position and you put 
forward a series of arguments in support of your request. These have been taken into 
account in my assessment, set out in the corresponding sections below.      
2. 
ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER REGULATION (EC) NO 1049/2001 
When assessing a confirmatory application for access to documents submitted pursuant 
to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the Secretariat-General conducts a fresh review of the 
reply given by the Directorate-General concerned at the initial stage. 
Following this review, I regret to inform you that I have to confirm the initial decision of 
the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy to refuse access to the requested 
document. The refusal is based on the exceptions of Article 4(2), third indent (protection 
of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits), Article 4(1)(a), fourth indent 
(protection of the public interest as regards the financial policy of the European Union), 
and Article 4(1)(b) (protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual) of 
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.  
Please find below the detailed reasons for the refusal. 
2.1.  Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits 
Article 4(2), third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides that ‘[t]he 
institutions shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the 
protection of […] the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, […] unless there 
is an overriding public interest in disclosure.’ 
The European Commission has the power to carry out audits to verify that the control and 
management mechanisms implemented by Member States are adequate and to check 
whether there are any deficiencies concerning projects funded by the European Union.  
Indeed, Article 75(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European 
Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional 
Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund (hereafter ‘Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013’)3, provides that 
‘[t]he Commission shall satisfy itself, on the basis of available information, […] that the 
Member States have set up management and control systems that comply with this 
                                                 
3   Official Journal L 347 of 20.12.2013, p. 320. 


 
Regulation and the Fund-specific rules and that those systems function effectively during 
the implementation of programmes’. 
Pursuant to Article 75(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, ‘Commission officials or 
authorised Commission representatives may carry out on-the-spot audits or checks […]. 
The scope of such audits or checks may include, in particular, verification of the effective 
functioning of management and control systems in a programme or a part thereof, in 
operations and assessment of the sound financial management of operations or 
programmes’.  
Similarly, Article 72 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying 
down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European 
Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/19994 sets 
out the responsibilities of the European Commission for the previous programming 
period.  
The document requested is a draft report forming part of the administrative file covering 
an audit (and its follow-up) in relation to certain operational programmes and rural 
development plans in the Czech Republic. The document contains the objective, scope 
and methodology of the audit, the preliminary findings, recommendations and 
conclusions for the key requirements audited, and the preliminary audit opinion.  
The audit covers the management and control systems in place before the entry into force 
of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union 
(hereafter ‘Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046’)5. It also covers operations approved 
after the entry into force of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046. The main objective of 
the audit is to verify compliance of the management and control systems with the 
regulatory framework related to the measures to avoid conflict of interests.  
It follows from the above that the audit, checks and their follow-up, envisaged by the 
above-mentioned rules, are audits in the sense of Article 4(2), third indent of Regulation 
(EC) No 1049/2001. 
In this regard, I would like to refer to the judgment of the General Court in Case 
T-480/11 (Technion)6, in which the General Court considered that the exception of 
Article 4(2), third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 applies if disclosure of the 
documents under the request may endanger the completion of inspections, investigations 
or audits. The General Court stated that ‘[t]he interest protected by that exception is the 
interest in allowing audits to be conducted independently and free of pressures, whether 
these come from the body being audited, from other interested bodies or from the general 
public’.7  
                                                 
4   Official Journal L 210 of 31.7.2006, p. 25. 
5   Official Journal L 193 of 30.7.2018, p. 1. 
6   Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015, Technion v Commission, T-480/11, EU:T:2015:272.  
7   Ibid, paragraph 63. 


 
In the above-referred judgment, the General Court also held that there is a general 
presumption that documents forming part of the administrative file of an audit can be 
considered as manifestly covered, in their entirety, by the exception referred to in Article 
4(2), third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, at least as long as the audit 
procedure is ongoing.8 Indeed, according to the settled case-law, the institutions may 
base their decisions on general presumptions which apply to certain categories of 
documents, as similar general considerations are likely to apply to requests for disclosure 
relating to documents of the same nature.9 
I consider that the document identified as falling within the scope of your request is 
manifestly covered, in its entirety, by the exception referred to in Article 4(2), third 
indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as it forms part of the administrative file of the 
above-referred audit.  
Public access to this document, which has been sent to the Czech authorities as part of 
the audit procedure, would be detrimental to the proper conduct of the audit in question. 
Indeed, it would compromise the smooth cooperation between the European Commission 
and the Czech authorities, which is an essential precondition for the effective fulfilment 
of the investigative tasks of the institution. It may lead to a reduced willingness, by the 
authorities of the Member State concerned to participate constructively in ongoing and 
future audits concerning Union funds. 
I would like to underline that the draft audit report is the preliminary (and not final) 
assessment of the European Commission on the management and control mechanisms 
audited. The document thus serves as the basis for discussions with the Member State 
and there is a real and non-hypothetical risk that its premature disclosure would adversely 
affect this dialogue. In particular, the disclosure of the document would provide an 
inaccurate picture to the public and lead to premature and unjustified conclusions on the 
overall compliance of the Member State concerned with the relevant Union rules. This, in 
turn, would seriously affect the climate of mutual trust between the European 
Commission and the Member State, which is necessary at any stage of the discussions.  
Moreover, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the audit is still in progress. 
Indeed, the relevant European Commission services carried out on-the-spot audit 
missions in the Czech Republic from 8 January to 15 February 2019. The Czech version 
of the draft report was sent to the Czech authorities on 4 July 2019. The European 
Commission, therefore, opened the contradictory procedure with the Member State 
concerned, requesting that the national authorities clarify or validate the facts presented 
in the draft audit report and express their agreement or disagreement with the draft 
findings. 
                                                 
8   Ibid, paragraphs 55-65. 
9   Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 June 2010, Commission  v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau 
(hereafter referred to as ‘Commission  v TGI judgment’), C-139/07 P, EU:C:2010:376, paragraph 54; 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November 2013, LPN and Finland v Commission, Joint Cases 
C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 45.  


 
Taking into account the additional information provided by the Member State, the 
European Commission will draft the final audit report as well as the final audit opinion. 
On the basis of the final audit report, the Member State may be requested to implement 
the proposed recommendation(s) and/or carry out corrective action(s). The European 
Commission will close the audit after the Member State has accepted and/or 
implemented the recommendations/actions proposed in the final audit report. Where the 
Member State has not accepted or implemented the recommendation(s) and/or action(s) 
proposed, the European Commission will apply appropriate measures. Only when the 
possible recommendations and/or corrective actions are implemented and the 
irregularities sanctioned, the audit will be definitely closed.  
Given the ongoing nature of the audit and the sensitivity of the investigations, the 
disclosure of the document requested would expose the auditors and the relevant 
European Commission departments to the foreseeable risk of coming under outside 
pressure, which would be detrimental to the proper conduct of the audit and undermine 
its effectiveness. It would also affect the European Commission’s capacity to carry out 
appropriate follow-up measures, if deemed necessary.  
I take the view that the purpose of such audit in the Member State concerned is best 
achieved through good cooperation and in bilateral discussions free from external 
pressure, notably when the subject of the inspections concerns the sensitive topic of 
potential shortcomings in the mechanisms for the prevention of conflict of interests in the 
allocation of European Union funds.  
Against this background, there is a foreseeable and not purely hypothetical risk that 
public release of the requested document would undermine the purpose of an ongoing 
audit, which is, in this instance, to ensure that the management and control systems 
implemented by the Member State are functioning effectively and, ultimately, to protect 
the Union’s financial interests. 
I conclude, therefore, that the requested document is covered in its entirety by the 
exception laid down in Article 4(2), third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and 
that access must be denied on that basis. 
2.2.  Protection of the public interest as regards the financial policy of the 
European Union 
Article 4(1)(a), fourth indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides that ‘[t]he 
institutions shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the 
protection of […] the public interest as regards […] the financial, monetary and 
economic policy of the Community or a Member State’. 
In its judgment in Case T-264/04 (WWF)10, the Court of First Instance11 considered that 
‘the institutions enjoy a wide discretion when considering whether access to a document 
                                                 
10   Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2007, WWF European Policy Programme v 
Council (hereafter referred to as ‘WWF Council judgment’), T-264/04, EU:T:2007:114. 
11   Currently the General Court.  


 
may undermine the public interest and, consequently, that the Court’s review of the 
legality of the institutions’ decisions refusing access to documents on the basis of the 
mandatory exceptions relating to the public interest must be limited to verifying whether 
the procedural rules and the duty to state reasons have been complied with, the facts have 
been accurately stated, and whether there has been a manifest error of assessment of the 
facts or a misuse of powers’.12  
The financial policy of the European Union relates closely to the proper management of 
Union funds. Indeed, an inadequate implementation of the European Structural and 
Investment Funds, or any irregularity in their management, would have the effect of 
prejudicing the budget of the European Union and, therefore, its financial interests. 
The above-mentioned audit is one of the means to protect the financial interests of the 
European Union. Should the European Commission services detect a serious dysfunction 
in the Czech management and control systems, or serious irregularities in the financial 
management of the programmes and operations concerned, the European Commission 
may apply the necessary measures to ensure the proper use of the Union funds and 
protect the financial interests of the European Union. 
Public access to the requested document, which would undermine the purpose of the 
ongoing audit, would also undermine the financial interests of the European Union, as it 
would hamper the European Commission’s ability to address constructively possible 
shortcomings in the mechanisms in place to prevent conflict of interests in the Member 
State and apply appropriate corrective measures, where necessary.  
In light of the above, there is a real and non-hypothetical risk that such premature 
disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards the financial 
policy of the European Union, notably with regard to the proper management of 
European Union funds.  
Consequently, I consider that public disclosure of the requested document is also 
prevented on the grounds of the protection of the public interest as regards the financial 
policy of the European Union, based on the exception of Article 4(1)(a), fourth indent of 
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 
2.3.  Protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual 
Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 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’. 
                                                 
12   WWF Council judgment, cited above, paragraph 40.  


 
In its judgment in Case C-28/08 P (Bavarian Lager)13, the Court of Justice ruled that 
when a request is made for access to documents containing personal data, 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 data14 
(hereafter ‘Regulation (EC) No 45/2001’) becomes fully applicable.  
Please note that, as from 11 December 2018, Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 has been 
repealed by Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of 
personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free 
movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 
1247/2002/EC15 (hereafter ‘Regulation (EU) 2018/1725’). 
However, the case law issued with regard to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 remains 
relevant for the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. 
In the above-mentioned judgment, the Court stated that Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation  
(EC) No 1049/2001 ‘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 […] [the 
Data Protection] Regulation’.16 
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 provides that  personal data ‘means any 
information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person […]’.  
As the Court of Justice confirmed in Case C-465/00 (Rechnungshof), ‘there is no reason 
of principle to justify excluding activities of a professional […] nature from the notion of 
private life’.17 
The document which you seek to obtain contains personal data such as the names and the 
surnames of persons who do not form part of the senior management of the European 
Commission. They also contain personal data from third parties, including the name of 
representatives of private companies.  
The names18 of the persons concerned as well as other data from which their identity can 
be deduced undoubtedly constitute personal data in the meaning of Article 3(1) of 
Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.  
                                                 
13  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 June 2010, Commission  v The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd 
(hereafter referred to as ‘Commission  v The Bavarian Lager judgment’) C-28/08 P, EU:C:2010:378, 
paragraph 59. 
14  Official Journal L 8 of 12.1.2001, p. 1.  
15  Official Journal L 205 of 21.11.2018, p. 39. 
16   Commission v The Bavarian Lager judgment, cited above, paragraph 59. 
17  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 May 2003, Rechnungshof and Others v Österreichischer 
Rundfunk, Joint Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01, EU:C:2003:294, paragraph 73. 
18  Commission v The Bavarian Lager judgment, cited above, paragraph 68. 


 
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, ‘personal data shall only be 
transmitted to recipients established in the Union other than Union institutions and bodies 
if ‘[t]he recipient establishes that it is necessary to have the data transmitted for a specific 
purpose in the public interest and the controller, where there is any reason to assume that 
the data subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced, establishes that it is 
proportionate to transmit the personal data for that specific purpose after having 
demonstrably weighed the various competing interests’. 
Only if these conditions are fulfilled and the processing constitutes lawful processing in 
accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, can the 
transmission of personal data occur. 
In Case C-615/13 P (ClientEarth), the Court of Justice ruled that the institution does not 
have to examine by itself the existence of a need for transferring personal data.19 This is 
also clear from Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, which requires that the 
necessity to have the personal data transmitted must be established by the recipient. 
According to Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the European Commission 
has to examine the further conditions for the lawful processing of personal data only if 
the first condition is fulfilled, namely if the recipient establishes that it is necessary to 
have the data transmitted for a specific purpose in the public interest. It is only in this 
case that the European Commission has to examine whether there is a reason to assume 
that the data subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced and, in the affirmative, 
establish the proportionality of the transmission of the personal data for that specific 
purpose after having demonstrably weighed the various competing interests. 
In your confirmatory application, you do not put forward any arguments to establish the 
necessity to have the data transmitted for a specific purpose in the public interest. 
Therefore, the European Commission does not have to examine whether there is a reason 
to assume that the data subjects’ legitimate interests might be prejudiced. 
Notwithstanding the above, there are reasons to assume that the legitimate interests of the 
data subjects concerned would be prejudiced by the disclosure of the personal data 
reflected in the documents, as there is a real and non-hypothetical risk that such public 
disclosure would harm their privacy and subject them to unsolicited external contacts.  
Consequently, I conclude that, pursuant to Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 
1049/2001, access cannot be granted to the personal data, as the need to obtain access 
thereto for a purpose in the public interest has not been substantiated and there is no 
reason to think that the legitimate interests of the individuals concerned would not be 
prejudiced by the disclosure of the personal data concerned. 
                                                 
19  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2015, ClientEarth  v  European  Food  Safety  Agency,         
C-615/13 P, EU:C:2015:489, paragraph 47. 


 
3. 
OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSURE 
The exception laid down in Article 4(2), third indent of Regulation (EC) No 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. 
According to the case-law, the applicant must, on the one hand, demonstrate the 
existence of a public interest likely to prevail over the reasons justifying the refusal of the 
documents concerned and, on the other hand, demonstrate precisely in what way 
disclosure of the documents would contribute to assuring protection of that public 
interest to the extent that the principle of transparency takes precedence over the 
protection of the interests which motivated the refusal.20  
In your confirmatory application, you state that, I quote: ‘the overriding public interest in 
disclosure can be identified, as the above-mentioned audit is affecting the Czech Prime 
Minister (and his – directly or indirectly – owned companies). [The Prime Minister] is 
undoubtedly a person whose actions should be under public scrutiny’.  
Having carefully analysed the above-referred arguments, I agree that, from a general 
point of view, they point to the existence of a certain interest in the subject matter at 
hand. However, I consider that such considerations do not demonstrate any pressing need 
for the public to obtain access to the document requested, which has a preliminary nature 
and does not set the final position of the institution regarding the activities audited.  
Moreover, I do not see how this interest would override the public interest in ensuring 
that the ongoing audit is properly conducted, and that the control systems in the Member 
State are fully aligned with the required Union standards. As explained in section 2.1 
above, the public interest is best served by allowing the European Commission to 
complete the audits in smooth cooperation with the Member State.  
Furthermore, I would like to stress that the requested document relates to an 
administrative procedure and not to any legislative act, for which the Court of Justice has 
acknowledged the existence of wider openness21. The General Court confirmed this 
jurisprudence in its judgment in Case T-476/12 (St. Gobain Glass)22  stressing the 
serenity of administrative proceedings and the need to protect administrative procedures 
from external pressure
In light of the above, I must conclude that the arguments you invoke do not demonstrate 
how disclosure of the requested document would contribute, in a concrete manner, to the 
                                                 
20   Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018, Anikó Pint v Commission, T-634/17, 
EU:T:2018:662, paragraph 48; Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2017, Association Justice 
& Environment, z.s 
v Commission, , T- 727/15, EU:T:2017:18, paragraph 53; Judgment of the General 
Court of 5 December 2018, Falcon Technologies International LLLC v Commission
T-875/16, EU:T:2018:877, paragraph 84. 
21   Commission  v TGI judgment, cited above, paragraphs 53-55 and 60; Commission v Bavarian Lager 
judgment, cited above, paragraphs 56-57 and 63.  
22   Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v Commission, 
T-476/12, EU:T:2014:1059, paragraphs 81-82. 



 
protection of any public interest which would override the public interest protected by 
Article 4(2), third indent (protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and 
audits) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.  
Please note also that the requested document is also protected under Articles 4(1)(a) and 
4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which do not include the possibility for the 
exceptions defined therein to be set aside by an overriding public interest.  
4. 
PARTIAL ACCESS 
In accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, I have considered the 
possibility of granting partial access to the document requested.  
However, as stated by the Court of Justice, where the document requested is covered by a 
general presumption of non-disclosure, such document does not fall within an obligation 
of disclosure, in full, or in part.23 
Consequently, as explained in sections 2.1 and 2.2 above, I have come to the conclusion 
that the document requested is covered in its entirety by the invoked exceptions to the 
right of public access. 
5. 
MEANS OF REDRESS 
Finally, I 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 Articles 263 and 
228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
Yours sincerely, 
For the Commission 
 
 
23
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 28 June 2012, Commission Éditions Odile Jacob, C-404/10 P, 
EU:C:2012:393, paragraph 133. 
10 
(OHFWURQLFDOO\ VLJQHG RQ    87& LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK DUWLFOH  9DOLGLW\ RI HOHFWURQLF GRFXPHQWV RI &RPPLVVLRQ 'HFLVLRQ