Report Neelie Kroes
Dear Madam, Sir,
Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting the report on the investigation into the conduct of former Commissioner Neelie Kroes.
While I acknowledge that the report may contain personal data, I believe there is a need for this personal data to be transferred to the public domain. It is in the public interest to understand the reasoning which led OLAF to conclude that Mrs Kroes did not break the EU's conduct rules. The reports that Mrs Kroes allegedly broke the rules for Commissioners had a considerable impact on the citizens' trust in the institutions. To restore that trust, the public needs to see the report to understand why OLAF came to the conclusion that Mrs Kroes did not break the rules.
Mrs Kroes herself has today proactively published a press release about the result of the report. Her personal integrity will not be harmed by the publication of the report. To the contrary, it would help restore her reputation.
I only require a digital copy and am requesting you refrain from physical postal communication. I am of course available to clarify my request further if needed.
Sincerely
Peter Teffer
Follow the Money
Overtoom 197
1054HT Amsterdam
Dear Mr Teffer,
Your application for access to documents was registered on 22 December 2023.
In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, your application will be handled within 15 working days after registration.
The time limit will expire on 23 January 2024. In case this time limit needs to be extended, you will be informed in due course.
Yours sincerely,
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE (OLAF)
Directorate D – Legal, Resources and Partnerships
Unit D.2 – Legal Advice
[OLAF request email]
Rue Joseph II, 30 • B-1000 Brussels (Belgium)
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud
Our policy regarding personal data protection can be viewed on http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/about-us/...
Dear Mr Teffer,
We refer to your request for public access to documents dated 22 December
2023.
Your application is currently being handled. However, we will not be in a
position to complete the handling of your application within the time
limit of 15 working days. An extended time limit is needed for necessary
consultations with other services.
Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the assessment of the document you
are requesting, we need more time. Therefore, we have to extend the time
limit with 15 working days in accordance with Article 7(3) Regulation (EC)
No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents. The new time limit will
expire on 13 February 2023.
We apologise for the delay and for any inconvenience this may cause.
Yours sincerely,
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE (OLAF)
Directorate D – Legal, Resources and Partnerships
Unit D.2 – Legal Advice
[1][OLAF request email]
Rue Joseph II, 30 • B-1000 Brussels (Belgium)
[2]http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud
Our policy regarding personal data protection can be viewed on
[3]http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/about-us/...
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[OLAF request email]
2. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/linkl...
3. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/linkl...
Dear Sir,
Please find attached the reply to your application for public access to documents.
We would kindly ask you to acknowledge safe receipt of this email.
Yours sincerely,
-------------------------------
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE (OLAF)
Directorate D – Legal, Resources and Partnerships
Unit D.2 – Legal Advice
[OLAF request email]
Rue Joseph II, 30 • B-1000 Brussels (Belgium)
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud
Our policy regarding personal data protection can be viewed on http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/about-us/...
Dear Sir,
A week ago we sent you the below reply to your request for access to documents. Could you confirm that you received this email?
Thank you very much in advance.
Kind regard,
-------------------------------
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE (OLAF)
Directorate D – Legal, Resources and Partnerships
Unit D.2 – Legal Advice
[OLAF request email]
Rue Joseph II, 30 • B-1000 Brussels (Belgium)
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud
Our policy regarding personal data protection can be viewed on http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/about-us/...
Dear Madam, Sir,
I would like to file a confirmatory application in regard to your reply to my request regarding the final report on the Neelie Kroes investigation (case OC/2022/0514/A1). My request was registered under reference OCM(2024)0028. (I hereby also confirm receipt of your e-mail with the decision.)
According to the reply I received, key parts of the report were redacted with reference to the exceptions for protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, as well as that for the protection of the decision-making process.
With reference to the former exception, names were redacted from the report. The reply to my initial request calls for a “express and legitimate justification or any convincing argument in order to demonstrate the necessity for those personal data to be transferred”.
I would like to point out that, in the report, the name of a key witness - whose “selective disclosure” has “hampered OLAF’s ability to construct a fully transparent and comprehensive understanding of the events under investigation” - was redacted from the document. The name of said witness is highly relevant to the public understanding of the investigation, as their contribution (or lack thereof) can only be understood in the light of their role in Ms. Kroes’ conduct. Non-disclosure makes it impossible to understand what kind of testimony is missing, thereby “hampering” the investigation in OLAF’s words.
Also, OLAF evidently interviewed several Commission officials in the course of its investigation. At one point, the document refers to a redacted name that is then described as “Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CNECT)”. If the redacted name is indeed Roberto Viola, the redaction is entirely silly and pointless.
In other places, the redactions of names of officials (or ex-officials) makes it hard to understand the level of cooperation from the Commission with the investigation. I consider it crucial to a proper public consideration and scrutiny of the OLAF investigation to learn whether different parties within the Commission cooperated in good faith with the probe.
Also, I want to point out that activities that are performed as part of the official duty of officials should not be considered private in any case. Therefore, their participation in the investigation, likewise, should not be seen as a private matter subject to redactions.
In other parts, the document redacts names as well as the context. In these instances, it is very hard to make a concrete argument for de-redaction. I ask OLAF to consider de-redacting as many names as possible as they contribute to the public understanding of the report, including allowing for independent scrutiny of its findings.
As regards the redactions based on the exception for ongoing decision-making, the reply argued that public insight into OLAF’s investigation working methods and strategy “could jeopardise the effectiveness of future OLAF investigations”. In regard to this argument, I wish to point out that OLAF itself has made substantial information on its investigation procedures available to the public, including in its “Guidelines on Investigation Procedures for OLAF Staff”, dating to 11 October 2021. This seems to suggest that not all of its working methods can be considered to be sensitive to disclosure to the public.
Also, I ask OLAF to consider the consistency of its reply in this case with similar, previously disclosed reports. For instance, I note that the report for an investigation into Frontex, which was made publicly available by a member of the European Parliament (https://groenlinks.nl/sites/groenlinks/f...), does not contain substantial redactions in the equivalent section, “Investigative activities carried out”. Rather, it lists information collection activities, interviews and inspections carried out. I wish to ask why a similar disclosure can’t be made in this case.
Lastly, I would like to argue for an overriding public interest in disclosure. The UberFiles revelations, including those about Neelie Kroes’ relationships to Uber have drawn the attention and elicited responses of the general public, members of the European Parliament, national governments and watchdogs such as OLAF and the European Ombudsman. The latter institution has recently addressed a letter to the European Commission, in which it references OLAF’s investigation into Kroes’ activities and asks the Commission to clarify how it aims to improve its processes to avoid similar impressions of conflict of interest.
In this light, a clearer public understanding of the content of OLAF’s investigation report manifestly contributes to the discussion about post-employment activities of Commissioner’s. Failure to disclose key parts of the report, as outlined above, risks skewing public perception of OLAF’s work and the responsiveness of the European Commission.
Kind regards
Peter Teffer
Dear Mr Teffer,
Your application for access to documents was registered on 22 February 2024.
In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, your application will be handled within 15 working days after registration.
The time limit will expire on 14 March 2024. In case this time limit needs to be extended, you will be informed in due course.
Yours sincerely,
-------------------------------
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE (OLAF)
Directorate D – Legal, Resources and Partnerships
Unit D.2 – Legal Advice
[OLAF request email]
Rue Joseph II, 30 • B-1000 Brussels (Belgium)
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud
Our policy regarding personal data protection can be viewed on http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/about-us/...
Dear Mr Teffer,,
We refer to your request for public access to documents dated 22 February 2024.
Your application is currently being handled. However, we will not be in a position to complete the handling of your application within the time limit of 15 working days. An extended time limit is needed for necessary consultations with other services.
Therefore, we have to extend the time limit with 15 working days in accordance with Article 7(3) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents. The new time limit will expire on 9 April 2024.
We apologise for the delay and for any inconvenience this may cause.
Yours sincerely,
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE (OLAF)
Directorate D – Legal, Resources and Partnerships
Unit D.2 – Legal Advice
[OLAF request email]
Rue Joseph II, 30 • B-1000 Brussels (Belgium)
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud
Our policy regarding personal data protection can be viewed on http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/about-us/...
Dear Mr Teffer,
Please find attached the reply to your confirmatory application of 22 February 2024.
We would kindly ask you to acknowledge safe receipt of this email.
Kind regards,
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE (OLAF)
Directorate D – Legal, Resources and Partnerships
Unit D.2 – Legal Advice
[OLAF request email]
Rue Joseph II, 30 • B-1000 Brussels (Belgium)
https://anti-fraud.ec.europa.eu
Our policy regarding personal data protection can be viewed on https://anti-fraud.ec.europa.eu/olaf-and...
Dear Mr Teffer,
On 4 April, we sent you the reply to your confirmatory application. Could you please confirm that you received it?
Thank you very much in advance.
Kind regard,
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE (OLAF)
Directorate D – Legal, Resources and Partnerships
Unit D.2 – Legal Advice
[OLAF request email]
Rue Joseph II, 30 • B-1000 Brussels (Belgium)
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud
Our policy regarding personal data protection can be viewed on http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/about-us/...
Dear Madam, Sir,
I can confirm I received OLAF's confirmatory application. Thank you.
All the best
Peter Teffer
Dear Mr Teffer,
It has come to our attention there was a technical issue when applying the redactions to the document that was sent to you on 4 April in reply to your confirmatory application.
Please find attached the correct version of the document, which is the one sent to you on 13 February 2024, following your initial application.
We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
Best regards,
-------------------------------
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE (OLAF)
Directorate D – Legal, Resources and Partnerships
Unit D.2 – Legal Advice
[OLAF request email]
Rue Joseph II, 30 • B-1000 Brussels (Belgium)
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud
Our policy regarding personal data protection can be viewed on http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/about-us/...
Peter hat eine Nachricht hinterlassen ()
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs...