Dear Research and Innovation (RTD),

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:

I refer to the FP6 Audit Manual, volume entitled 'Guidelines to on-the-spot financial audits on FP6 Contracts' dated 15 September 2006, and in particular the contents of section 4.2 4.2 - Direct costs – Personnel, pages 17-20. The Research family DGs have provided their external contractors-auditors with a copy of the FP6 Audit Manual as a guide for the conduct of audits. Full extracts from pages 15-20 are given as an annex hereto.

I would be obliged if DG RTD and the Legal Services would provide me with full copies of the following documents.

#1. The ‘inter-services’ consultations, or equivalent, among the Research family DGs regarding the FP6 Audit Manual, including the meeting minutes.

#2. The documents with which DG RTD, as the lead service, requested the opinion of the Legal Services, about the lawfulness of the FP6 Audit Manual with regards to Community law at the material time, as well as the case law of the EU Courts. This applies in particular for (i) the personal data processing and (ii) that the Research family DGs and their external contractors-auditors acquire third-party information (e.g. freelancers, in-house consultants, service suppliers to the audittee) of the kind protected by professional secrecy, and even business secrets.

#3. The documents with which DG RTD, as the lead service, requested the opinion of the Legal Services, about the lawfulness of the FP6 Audit Manual with regards to national laws of the Member States for personal data protection.

#4. The documents drawn up by the Legal Services in response to the DG RTD request under #2 above.

#5. The documents drawn up by the Legal Services in response to the DG RTD request under #3 above.

#6. The prior notification(s) of article 25 of Regulation No 45/2001, as of 15/9/2006, regarding the personal data processing the audit practices of the FP6 Audit Manual necessarily entail, as well as every single document regarding that prior notification(s) drawn up by the relevant data controller(s).

#7. The documents the Research family DGs drew up in 2007 or earlier and dispatched to the Commission Data Protection Officer informing the Officer about the personal data processing operations in the framework of the FP6 financial audits.

#8. The documents the Data Protection Officer drew up in 2007 or earlier as a result of having been informed by the Research family DGs about the personal data processing operations in the framework of the FP6 financial audits.

#9. The documents with which the Commission, as body adopting decisions on a collegial manner, delegated authority to the administrative departments of the Commission, i.e. the Research family DGs, to adopt in the FP6 programme financial audit practices that entailed massive personal data processing.

#10. The documents with which senior civil servants of the Research family DGs assumed towards the Commission individual and personal responsibility for the lawfulness of the personal data processing of the FP6 programme financial audits, especially in view of the provisions of the FP6 Audit Manual. Having due regard of the article 49 of Regulation No 45/2001, it is expected that such documents will essentially provide for personal liabilities broadly similar to those of the authorising officers and accounting officers laid down in Regulation No 1605/2002, as amended.

#11. Referring to page 17 of the FP6 Audit Manual about the on-the-spot audits and the practices of a previous programme ‘For the performance of financial audits under previous framework programmes, the Commission issued the following alternative audit programme (It is not required for FP6, but might be useful when justifying time devoted to the project) to be performed by the EAF in cases where no time records were prepared’ every single document drawn up by the Research family DGs having the nature of a FP5 Audit Manual.

#12. The documents setting out the 'recommendations' to the external contractors-auditors to demand from the auditee copies of trial balances (i.e. the detailed records in the accounting books) for the transactions of the auditee with third parties to audited projects, as well as the 'recommendation' to demand a full and complete copy of the auditee trial balances for several years. It is emphasised that trial balances contain lots of personal data, such as invoicing details of freelancers and in-house consultants. In several FP6 contract final audit reports drawn up by by the external contractors-auditors, the 'authorised representatives' of the Research family DGs have relied on such trial balances to draw negative conclusions about eligibility of costs. Subsequently, those final audit reports were expressly approved by respective Directorate-General.

******************

OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST

The attention of DG RTD is drawn to the Gestdem 2013/3418 that concerns the DG ENTR DPO-3334.1, http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/exten..., and the statements/declarations 'This processing has been submitted to the EDPS who concluded that Article 27 is not applicable' and '3. Sub-Contractors —'. Having due regard to the provisions of paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of article 24 of Regulation No 45/1001, the Commission Data Protection Officer has admitted in his email of 5/7/2013 and in full public view that he has not drawn up a single document about DG ENTR DPO-3334.1. It thus necessarily follows that the statement/declaration about the purported EDPS consultation of DG ENTR DPO-3334.1 is outright false.

Since DG INFSO DPO-3338.1, DG RTD DPO-3398 (middle 2012), and DG MOVE DPO-3420 have identical statements/declarations, it must be concluded that the purported EDPS consultations are false too.

It is clear that the Research family DGs have been caught red-handed in making false statements/declarations in a statutory instrument, i.e. prior notifications of article 25 of Regulation No 45/2001. This not only makes every single FP6 & FP7 financial audit outright unlawful, but it also calls into question the very integrity of the Directorates/Units of the Research family DGs entrusted with the FP6 and FP7 programme. As the lead service, the integrity of the whole DG RTD is, in my view, in tatters.

The emergence of such extremely disturbing evidence about the flagrantly unlawful conduct of the Research family DGs makes automatically every single document setting out recommendations for financial audit working practices subject to a full release.

Data subjects whose rights were gravely infringed by the Research family DGs need to assess the strategy, policy and operational tactics of the FP6 financial audits in order to draw conclusions whether or not they will bring an action before the General Court, and possibly before a national Courts for the unlawful acts of the external auditors. In addition, the EDPS and the national Personal Data Protection authorities must be fully informed about all that in order to appraise the conduct of the Research family DGs and the external auditors. This cannot take place outside the full public view.

Taking a leaf from the 'book' of the ant-trust investigations 'story' of DG COMP, the public is entitled to have a full view of the sole instigator and sole leader of the 'trust' that committed the wrongful acts, that is to say the grave infringements of Community and national law on personal data protection, culminating in the filing of false statements/declarations in a statutory instrument, and in full public view.

The last straw is that the wrongful acts were committed by the administrative departments of the Guardian of the Treaties.

It is my firm belief that the above arguments for an overriding public interest cannot be refuted.

*******************************

ANNEX

FP6 AUDIT MANUAL, Guidelines to on-the-spot financial audits on FP6 Contracts, 15 September 2006

Full extracts from pages 15-20:

4.2 - Direct costs – Personnel

Time recording

There is no specific contractual requirement concerning the participant's obligation to keep a record of the hours spent by its staff on the funded project.

Nevertheless, personnel costs declared to the Commission must fulfil the general eligibility requirements established in Article 19.1 of Annex II to the contract. In particular, they must be identified in the contractor's accounting system and directly attributable to the project.

Interpretation

Time sheets and alternative evidence Contractors must be in a position to justify the allocation of personnel costs to the audited project, and as a result the existence of time sheets or any other time recording system is necessary. In fact, the different versions of the financial guidelines published in CORDIS have advised contractors to keep some sort of time recording in the absence of any other reliable system to justify the allocation of personnel costs to the project.

Contractors shall be requested in advance to produce a detailed justification concerning the personnel costs taken into account in the Financial Statement (Form C) sent to the Commission. This justification should mention the individual employees involved in the project and corresponding personnel costs.

Actual time spent in the project and hourly rate applied should also be specified (although this can be calculated on-the-spot). Audit teams shall assess whether the evidence provided by the contractor is sufficient and reliable to comply with the contractual provisions, on the basis of their professional judgement.

Time recording arrangements may be (paper-bound or electronic) time sheets, but the use of other means of recording the actual hours spent on the project shall not be excluded.

Time records (when they exist) should be checked for compliance with the following general requirements:

- Identification (time records shall refer specifically to the individual employee and to the indirect RTD action audited, as well as to the period covered).
- Certification (hours charged to the project should be subject to verification by the person responsible for the project or supervisor).
- Credibility when compared to standard productive hours (e.g. if many employees seem to work longer, one may question the productive hours calculation) or to individual records (project records as compared to all records concerning the employee).

Problems encountered
The most common problems are:
- the absence of reliable time records and
- the lack of certified by the person in charge of the work (recommendation)

Where there are no time sheets, contractors shall provide alternative justification on the allocation of personnel costs to the project. Based on the evidence the auditors must conclude whether all or only part of the costs claimed are allowable.

So called "attestations d'honneur" are not considered to be an appropriate alternative justification and are therefore not acceptable.

Time recording should be assessed for all contractors, regardless the cost reporting model (AC, FC, FCF) or the instrument concerned by the financial audit.

Note that unpaid overtime does not constitute a cost for the beneficiary and can never be reimbursed under the contract.
Documentation

It is important to keep on file /consult (see Annex 3):

- List of all personnel involved in the RTD action indicating period(s) they worked for the project as well as position classification / category

- As many copies of certified time sheets or timesheet summaries as practicable, in order to provide a clear audit trail for the hours charged on the cost statements.

- A full record of the results of the alternative audit programme, stating clearly what information was available and reasons why any information could not be obtained.

Commission's approach

For the performance of financial audits under previous framework programmes, the Commission issued the following alternative audit programme (It is not required for FP6, but might be useful when justifying time devoted to the project) to be performed by the EAF in cases where no time records were prepared:

“Practical advice for external audits
The absence of time sheets should not automatically result in the disallowance of the cost charged. The burden of proof rests with the Contractor. Therefore the auditors must seek from the Contractor alternative evidence to support the reasonableness of the number of hours charged. As such the auditors must:

a) Verify that the personnel charged to the contract exist and were employed during the period in question. The qualifications and experience of the personnel should also be reviewed.

b) Interview as many of the personnel as possible. Ask each employee to describe their part in the project and the work performed, to demonstrate equipment and consumables used and to estimate their time worked on the project. Cross check the evidence of one against the other.

c) Verify how workable hours have been split between different projects (to exclude that more than 100% of workable hours have been charged). Also verify that the hours claimed are within the project period.

d) Match the time charged with the periodic reports produced on the progress of the work. e) Verify if the personnel charged have been present in meetings concerning the project.

f) Verify if the personnel charged are named in scientific reports and publications relating to the project.

g) Examine working papers to establish a link between the work performed and the project.”

Whereas it is common practice to seek alternative evidence in the absence of time records, please note that oral evidence alone is insufficient for allowing personnel cost.

Please note that it often happens that the time recording at a contractor is not perfect and accordingly, the auditors should clearly describe what the situation is (e.g. all or some time records are missing, all or some certification is missing etc.). It is evident that the less the contractor has complied with the provisions of time recording, the deeper the “Alternative Audit programme” should go.

Personnel costs under the Full cost (FC) or the Full cost flat rate (FCF) reporting models

The Contract

There is no specific contractual requirement concerning the eligibility of personnel costs under indirect RTD actions funded by the Community under FP6. Therefore, the general eligibility requirements established in Articles 19.1 and 20.1 of Annex II to the contract apply.

In particular, eligible personnel costs shall be:
- actual, economic and necessary;
- incurred during the duration of the project;
- determined using the usual accounting principles of the contractor;
- identified in the contractor's accounting system and directly attributable to the project (see section on time records).

Interpretation

All personnel costs related to the audited project may be considered eligible under FP6, provided that they comply with the general eligibility requirements. This concerns both temporary and permanent staff, and could even concern in-house consultants [- usually on premises of contractor; -under instructions of contractor; -results belong to contractor; -costs similar to those of employees in similar circumstances; travel paid by contractor] if these are considered as 'personnel' in line with the usual policies and practices of the contractors (in principle this would only have an impact in the indirect costs calculation - see considerations made on this issue under the corresponding section of these guidelines).

The status of the individuals for which personnel costs have been declared can be easily established and proved by checking the employment contracts and the related payroll/salary slips.

Problems encountered

The first difficulty is to determine whether consultants shall be considered personnel or subcontracted staff. In the first case, the contractors will be able to charge indirect costs associated to them (either in the form of an accurate overhead rate for FC contractors or applying the percentages foreseen for AC and FCF contractors). The general policies applied by the contractor on this area shall be taken into account. The audit team could verify in particular the way in which the costs are accounted for and finally represented in the financial statements.

Another problem concerns the policy to charge average or estimated personnel rates instead of actual costs. Article II.19.1.a of Annex II of the FP6 model contract states that costs must be actual.

Use of average costs:

If at the time of the establishment of the financial statement and the audit certificate - including the final reporting period - , actual costs are not available, averages could be accepted proviso:
(i) the organisation in its normal accounting practice uses averages, i.e. the averages are not purpose made for the Commission.

(ii) the averages provide the closest possible approximation of the actual costs and are based on the most accurate information/data available at the moment the financial statement is made.

In case an audit certificate is required the auditor must report on the use of averages and confirm that costs claimed using averages reflect the requirements of the contract and they provide the closest possible approximation of the actual costs. Nevertheless, in case of a financial audit carried out by (or on behalf of) the EC the Commission reserves the right to adjust the averages to real costs.

Use of estimated costs:

If at the time of the establishment of the financial statement and the audit certificate, actual costs are not available, estimates could be accepted proviso:

(i) the organisation in its normal accounting practice uses estimates/averages, i.e. the estimates are not purpose made for the Commission.

(ii) the estimates provide the closest possible approximation of the actual costs and are based on the most accurate information/data available at the moment the financial statement is made.

In case an audit certificate is required the auditor must report on the use of estimates and confirm that costs claimed using estimates reflect the requirements of the contract and they provide the closest possible approximation of the actual costs.

Whenever possible, contractors that have used estimates should adjust these costs and provide actual costs when these become available. If the final financial statement is submitted a long time after the end of the project and it can be reasonably expected that actual costs are available, financial statements with actual costs will be needed.

At final payment, estimates can only be claimed if at that moment it is (still) not possible or very difficult to know the real costs. For these cases, the auditors should also mention that the costs are based on estimates which are the closest possible to real costs at the moment of charging these costs. Nevertheless, in case of a financial audit carried out by (or on behalf of) the EC the Commission reserves the right to adjust the estimates to real costs.

Documentation

It is important to keep on file / consult:

- Copies of employment contracts
- Evidence for gross salary (payroll/salary slip)
- Evidence of checks of proper recording of eligible costs in the organisations accounting records.
- Evidence of payment of salary (bank statement)
- Contractor's personnel policy or work conventions.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Orestis BEKAS

Dear Research and Innovation (RTD),

A confirmatory application is submitted pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 for the requests under #1, #10 and #11 of the initial application. It is kindly requested that DG RTD transfer the confirmatory application to the Secretariat-General.

Detailed arguments respectfully challenging the DG RTD initial reply are set out below.

I. REQUEST #1: INTER-SERVICES CONSULTATIONS REGARDING THE FP6 AUDIT MANUAL

According to the DG RTD initial reply no documents exist. This necessarily means that DG RTD, which is also the lead service with regards FP5-FP6-FP7, undertook a diligent search for documents, the result of which is that no documents exist. Consequently, the DG RTD initial reply is to be construed as a “statement” that (i) either no inter-services consultations took place at all, or (ii) inter-services consultations took place, but no documents were drawn up.

Both alternatives fly in the face of (i) common sense, and (ii) that elementary rules dictate that documents ought to have been drawn up.

Part of page 6 of the document “FP6 AUDIT MANUAL Guidelines to on-the-spot financial audits on FP6 Contracts” of 15/9/2013 reads:

“FP6 is operated by five different Directorate-Generals (DGs), namely:
- DG Research (RTD),
- DG Information Society & Media (INFSO)
- DG Energy & Transport (TREN),
- DG Enterprise and Industry (ENTR) and
- DG Fisheries and Sea Affaires (FISH). ”

It is contrary to common sense to argue that DG INFSO, DG TREN, DG ENRT and DG FISH were not involved in drawing up the FP6 Audit Manual, in which case inter-services consultations were indeed held.

The Secretariat-General has to consider that DG RTD has literally lied in its prior notification of article 25 of Regulation No 45/2001 DPO-3398.1, DPO-3398.2 and DPO-3398.3 about (i) the purported EDPS consultation and (ii) that no subcontractors were employed (DPO-3398.3 in summer 2012). Moreover, the reply of DG RTD to request under #7 of the application 2013/3351, http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/perso..., means that the legal basis of all versions of DPO-3398 is literally non-existing. In view of the DG RTD target in FP6 & FP7 to clear 50% of all costs by external financial audits – which implies that DPO-3398 is not an obscure or insignificant technicality - the DG RTD behaviour (i.e. that of an administrative department of an Institution) calls into question the honesty and integrity of the whole administrative department.

Consequently, the initial reply of DG RTD alone about the non-existence of documents cannot and be regarded as sufficient to establish the non-existence of documents. The applicant respectfully submits that documents do indeed exist and that for its own reasons DG RTD chose not to disclose them.

II. REQUEST #10: ACCEPTANCE BY OFFICIALS OF THE LIABILITIES FOR THE LAWFULNESS OF THE PERSONAL DATA PROCESSING OF THE FP6 EXTENRAL FINANCIAL AUDITS

In the context of Regulation No 1605/2002, as amended, (Financial Regulation) and other related Commission Decisions adopted for the management of the budget senior Commission officials (at the level of Director-General and Director) undertake personal liability for the lawful and diligent discharge of their duties. Article 49 of Regulation No 45/2001 provides for the automatic disciplinary liability for any infringement of the Regulation, even for infringements solely caused by negligence.

With regards the DG RTD FP6 external financial audits the following matters are highly relevant:

- According to DG RTD, no prior notification of article 25 of Regulation No 45 covered the DG RTD external financial audits prior to the first filing of DPO-3398, i.e. in April 2011. Yet as far DG RTD is concerned, according to the 2010 DG RTD Annual Activity Report the FP6 external audits campaign ended in 2010, which means that DG RTD gravely infringed article 24 and 25 of Regulation No 45/2001.

- The DG RTD DPO-3398 is essentially a wholly “fake” prior notification. It has no legal basis whatsoever and up to mid-June 2013 DPO-3398 has had at least one false statement, namely “This processing has been submitted to the EDPS who concluded that article 27 is not applicable”.

- By way of the DG RTD initial reply of 12/9/2013 to the application pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 GestDem 2013/3351, http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/perso..., in particular the DG RTD initial reply to requests #12 - #14, DG RTD has admitted that all references to IT tools in DPO-3398 are essentially “fake”, in the sense that the DPO-3398 data controller was referring to personal data processing operations using IT tools that were wholly irrelevant to external financial audits and the associated personal data processing. Furthermore, according to the DG RTD initial reply the entire DG RTD does not hold a copy of the documentation of these IT tools, not even a single paragraph. This begs the question how the DGP-3398 data controller even comprehended to cite those tools in DPO-3398, let alone expressly refer to such tools in a statutory instrument about the fundamental right of personal data protection.

The FP6 Audit Manual expressly provides for personal data processing in audits. One example is given below by way of extracts from page 16 of the “FP6 AUDIT MANUAL Guidelines to on-the-spot financial audits on FP6 Contracts” dated 15/9/2013:

“Time sheets and alternative evidence Contractors must be in a position to justify the allocation of personnel costs to the audited project, and as a result the existence of time sheets or any other time recording system is necessary. In fact, the different versions of the financial guidelines published in CORDIS have advised contractors to keep some sort of time recording in the absence of any other reliable system to justify the allocation of personnel costs to the project. [...]

Actual time spent in the project and hourly rate applied should also be specified (although this can be calculated on-the-spot). Audit teams shall assess whether the evidence provided by the contractor is sufficient and reliable to comply with the contractual provisions, on the basis of their professional judgement.

Time recording arrangements may be (paper-bound or electronic) time sheets, but the use of other means of recording the actual hours spent on the project shall not be excluded.

Time records (when they exist) should be checked for compliance with the following general requirements:
• Identification (time records shall refer specifically to the individual employee and to the indirect RTD action audited, as well as to the period covered).
• Certification (hours charged to the project should be subject to verification by the person responsible for the project or supervisor).
• Credibility when compared to standard productive hours (e.g. if many employees seem to work longer, one may question the productive hours calculation) or to individual records (project records as compared to all records concerning the employee). [...] ”

It is crystal-clear that the above ‘guidelines’ entail personal data processing of third parties to the audited FP6 contracts (the individuals whose labour costs were charged to an audited project).

It is beyond the slightest doubt that the public is faced with a situation where the DPO-3398 data controller, with the DG RTD Data Protection Coordinator and the Commission Data Protection Officer (attached to the Secretariat-General) as ‘accomplices’, has manifestly entered and maintained for more than 2 years an entirely “fake” article 25 of Regulation No 45/2001 prior notification marred by false declarations and a non-existing legal basis.

It cannot be accepted that senior officials have not undertaken in writing “individual and personal responsibility for the lawfulness of the personal data processing of the FP6 programme financial audits”. If this indeed the case, then the public will rightly see that DG RTD is an administrative department where “anything goes” for at least the last 10 years, and that DG RTD senior officials are free to disregard essential provisions of Community law with impunity.

Consequently, the initial reply of DG RTD alone about the non-existence of documents cannot and be regarded as sufficient to establish the non-existence of documents. The applicant respectfully submits that for the sake of the good standing of the Commission services towards the public the Secretariat-General is obliged to undertake a fresh search for documents for this particular request.

III. REQUEST #11: PARTIALLY RELEASED “RTD MANUAL 5TH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME”

III.1. OBSERVATIONS ON THE PARTIAL RELEASE

For the sake of brevity, a few observations only will be made:

- It is entirely puzzling why the title page, or page no 1, was totally withheld. It is difficult to see what the reasonably foreseeable risks of undermining the protected interests is. In fact, withholding the first page(s) is commensurate with a total refusal for release of a document.

- There is no logic to redact a few words in the table of contents, such as ANNEXES: FP5 AUDIT ISSUES [...], or the title of the corresponding page 45. Such redaction strongly suggests that DG RTD aims at avoiding the disclosure of further documents whose existence is indicated by the redacted words.

- The extensive reduction of page 3, even though it is part of a 2-page introduction to the whole document, suggests an infringement of article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

- The whole reduction seems as arbitrary and meaningless, in the sense that the redaction has fragmented the document too much in order not to undermine the protected interests.

III.2. RELIANCE ON ARTICLE 4(1)(a) OF REGULATION NO 1049/2001

DG RTD has relied on article 4(1)(a) “protection of the Union’s financial policy” to justify the partial release of the FP5 audit manual.

In my view, this is a borderline absurd argument. The Union’s “financial interests” are very different from the “financial policy”. The reimbursement of unduly paid amounts (perhaps established from a DG RTD external audit) is at the heart of the Union’s financial interests. However, that reimbursement does not affect, not even to the slightest possible extent, the Union’s financial policy per se.

The Commission services should bear in mind that transparency promotes the Union’s financial interests, and does not protect them, contrary to the implied reasoning.

III.3. RELIANCE ON ARTICLE 4(2) OF REGULATION NO 1049/2001 “PROTECTION OF THE PURPOSES OF AUDITS”

The DG RTD argument is essentially a huge leap in logic, specifically by arguing that the FP5 projects external financial audit methods are largely similar to those of the corresponding audits of the FP7. The same argument can be made for Horizon 2020 and its future successor. The DG RTD logic would preclude the release of the redacted parts of the FP5 audit manual for the next five to ten years.

Furthermore, the DG RTD position “Some of the expunged parts of the manual relate to procedures which could enable a beneficiary to pre-empt the audit by making adaptations to their accounting and supporting documentation. This would lose the potential benefits derived from this type of audit and would undermine the purpose of future audits […] If this information were to be disclosed it
would leave areas of flexibility open to abuse. This would therefore undermine the audit process. Consequently, it would defy the primary purpose of current and future audits” is in itself highly objectionable. It seems to suggest:

- That considering jointly the FP7 legal framework (e.g. Regulation No 1906/2006), the FP7 model grant agreement, and the FP7 Guides to Financial Issues there are some loopholes that FP7 beneficiary are able to exploit them. DG RTD has not taken measures to “close” the loopholes and has relied on the audits alone.

- Changes to accounting practices and supporting documentation to ‘evade’ DG RTD audits would be contrary to the national legal provisions, since legal entities maintain accounting records in a manner and form prescribed by national legislation.

- Rogue FP7 beneficiaries may forge documents about the costs of an FP7 action, but such actions border fraud and thus cannot be the main objectives of a typical FP7 audit.

III.4. REBUTAL OF THE DG RTD ARGUMENTS IN OTHER APPLICATIONS PURSUANT TO REGULATION NO 1049/2001 FOUND AT ASKTHEEU.ORG

In so far article 4(1)(a) “protection of the Union’s financial policy” is concerned, the Secretariat-General is referred to the arguments set out in section “1.1 RELIANCE ON ARTICLE 4(1)(a) FOURTH INDENT OF THE REGULATION ‘FINANCIAL POLICY’” of the confirmatory application GestDem 2013/3573, http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/dg_rt..., which are incorporated herein by reference.

IV. CONFIRMATORY APPLICATION

A confirmatory application is respectfully submitted for requests under #1, #10 and #11. I trust that the arguments set out above in support of the full disclosure of the documents in question will be taken into full account.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Orestis BEKAS