Bonjour,
 
Je vous prie de bien vouloir traiter la demande d'accès aux documents dont copie plus bas enregistrée sous les références GESTDEM 2013/6036 (pour la DG AGRI) et GESTDEM 2013/6037 (pour le GREFFE du SG).
 
Les documents demandés relevant de la compétence de la DG AGRI sont repris sous le point III. PRECISE DEFINITION OF DOCUMENTS, REQUESTS 11 & 12 de la demande.
 
1. C(2006)5/F of 12/1/2006
2. C(2006)6889/F of 22/12/2006
3. C(2007)239/F of 31/01/2007
4. C(2007)6897/F of 21/12/2007
5. C(2008)554/F of 18/2/2008
6. C(2008)8864/F of 19/12/2008
7. C(2009)150/F of 28/1/2009
8. C(2009)10613/F of 18/12/2009
9. C(2010)139/F1 of 20/1/2010
 
Je me permets de vous rappeler que le délai impératif de réponse est de 15 ouvrables à partir de l'enregistrement de la demande (délai : 23/12/2013).
 
Afin de pouvoir mettre à jour la base de données GESTDEM, veuillez envoyer une copie de toute votre correspondance avec le demandeur (lettre d'attente, réponse) à la boîte fonctionnelle SG DOSSIERS ACCES.
 
Pour toute information complémentaire, veuillez me contacter.

Bonne journée,
 
BLURIOT-PUEBLA Madeleine
Cellule 'Accès aux documents'
 

European Commission
SG/B/5 - Transparence

BERL 05/330
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
+32 2 296 09 97
[email address]
 
 
_____________________________________________
From: SG ACCES DOCUMENTS
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 4:40 PM
To: 'ask+[email address]'
Subject: Your request for access to documents ------ GESTDEM 2013/6036 (DG AGRI) and GESTDEM 2013/6037 (SG)
 
 
Dear Mr. Drosos,
 
We refer to your e-mail dated 13/11/2013.  We hereby acknowledge receipt of your application for access to documents registered on 02/12/2013 under the following reference numbers :
 
- GESTDEM 2013/6036 (for the documents of DG AGRI - III. PRECISE DEFINITION OF DOCUMENTS, REQUESTS 11 & 12);
- GESTDEM 2013/6037 (for the documents of SG - IV. REWORDING OF REQUESTS (1) – (9)).
 
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. The time limit will expire on 23/12/2013.  In case this time limit needs to be extended, you will be informed in due course.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
BLURIOT-PUEBLA Madeleine
Cellule 'Accès aux documents'
 

European Commission
SG/B/5 - Transparence

BERL 05/330
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
+32 2 296 09 97
[email address]
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Mr. Charilaos. DROSOS [mailto:ask+[email address]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:35 PM
To: AGRI ACCESS DOCUMENTS
Subject: RE: Request for access to documents - 2ND PART - DG AGRI ARCHIVAL POLICY OF DEPARTMENTAL DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
 
Dear Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI),
 
Thank you for the email of 13 November. The applicant has appreciated the additional information and the clarifications of the DG AGRI K.2 Unit
 
The following sections set out the applicant’s observations on the K.2 Unit last email, and define precisely the requested documents. The applicant has respectfully taken issue with the letter and spirit of some of the K.2 Unit positions.
 
I. DG AGRI K.2 UNIT NOVELTIES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF EU LAW ON THE PUBLIC’S ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS HELD BY THE COMMISSION
 
In so far it can be inferred from the email of 13/11/2013, it appears that the DG AGRI K.2 Unit has some kind of its own interpretation of Regulation 1049/2001, Commission Decision 937/2001 (Official Journal 29/12/2001, L345 page 94), the case-law of the Courts of the Union on Regulation 1049/2001, and the internal Guidelines of the Secretariat-General. 
 
The K.2 Unit statement “According our internal rules (COMMISSION DECISION of 5 December 2001 C (2001) 3714 (…)” is manifestly erroneous in so far it has referred to ‘internal rules’. The ‘internal rules’ are in fact the rules laid down in Commission Decision 937/2001, which were duly adopted pursuant to article 18(1) of Regulation 1049/2001. Put differently, Decision 937/2001 lays down a rule of law. 
 
The K.2 Unit has apparently relied on the third paragraph of article 2 of Commission Decision 937/2001 to ‘justify’ its ‘measure’ not to attribute a GestDem reference number, disregarding, apparently, the following two fundamental legal provisions:
 
1. Article 7(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 reads “An application for access to a document shall be handled promptly. An acknowledgement of receipt shall be sent to the
applicant. Within 15 working days from registration of the application (…)”
 
2. The second paragraph of article 3 of Decision 937/2001 that reads “The acknowledgement of receipt and the answer shall be sent in writing, where appropriate, by electronic means”. 
 
It also defies common sense to argue that a GestDem reference number is to be attributed AFTER an administrative department has conferred with an applicant pursuant to article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001. Such an interpretation would result in the attribution of a  GestDem reference number being dependant on the diligence of an administrative department in understanding what are the requested documents.
 
That the Secretariat-General has not adopted the ‘practice’ of DG AGRI in attributing GestDem reference numbers is indicative of the ‘innovations’ of the DG AGRI K.2 Unit in how to handle the first stage of the administrative procedure under Regulation 1049/2001.  Contrary to the DG AGRI K.2 practice, the Secretariat-General promptly attributes a GestDem reference number and informs applicants accordingly, without waiting for consultations pursuant to article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001.
 
The applicant could have lodged the very same application with the Secretariat-General, in which case a GestDem reference would have been attributed promptly. The Secretariat-General would have transferred the application to DG AGRI to provide the initial response in accordance to article 10 of Decision 937/2001. Concerning an application for which DG AGRI is to provide the initial response, according to the implied DG AGRI K.2 logic the prompt attribution of a GestDem reference number depends on whether the applicant lodges the application with the Secretariat-General or DG AGRI. It is evident that such logic is contrary to the principle of sound administration. Consequently, there can be no question that the attribution of a GestDem reference number may be deferred until all article 6(3) consultations with an applicant have been fruitful in precisely identifying the requested documents. 
 
In conclusion, the DG AGRI K.2 Unit practice to attribute a GestDem reference number after an applicant has either ‘clarified’ his/her request(s) or provided more information enabling a precise identification of the documents runs contrary to Union law and the practice of the Secretariat-General.
 
II. DAY NOTES 
 
The K.2 Unit stated that day notes are not ‘addressed’ to DG AGRI. Indeed, neither DG AGRI nor any other Directorate-General is the addressee of a day note. By definition, a day note is an autonomous document. Similarly, Commission Decision C(2001) 3714 is also an autonomous document.
 
By stating that day notes are not ‘addressed’ to DG AGRI, the K.2 Unit has impliedly attempted to explain why DG AGRI does not hold copies of day notes in the period 2006-2010.  Yet, DG AGRI not being an addressee of a day note does not, per se, mean that the Secretariat-General has not circulated day notes to DG AGRI pursuant to article 16 of Annex 2 of Commission Decision C(2005)4416. 
 
In fact, DG AGRI not holding copies of day notes concerning proposals tabled by DG AGRI and duly adopted by the written procedure in the period 2006-2010 is most astonishing, as the Commission’s rules of procedure expressly prescribe that the Secretariat-General will promptly circulate the day notes within 24 hours of being properly drawn up. For such kind of Decisions under the responsibility of DG AGRI, this provision means that the Secretariat-General had in the period 2006-2010 an absolute obligation to dispatch to DG AGRI a copy of the duly signed day note, as prescribed by the rules of procedure.
 
The K.2 Unit kind explanations about day notes of year 2013, and their availability on-line, are immaterial to the present application.
 
It is pointed out that the K.2 Unit reliance on Decision 937/2001 to justify the non-attribution so far of a GestDem reference number – which is erroneous anyway -  is highly inconsistent with the disregard of the aforesaid article 16 over a period of four years.  It indicates that DG AGRI – as an administrative department -  has an inclination to observe the provisions of Union law ‘a-la-carte’, which is in itself highly incompatible with the Commission being the guardian of the Treaties.
 
It must thus be concluded that the DG AGRI reply of 13/11/2013 is an implied total, wholly unjustified, refusal to release the requested day notes of the period 2006-2010, of which DG AGRI ought to hold copies according to the Commission’s rules of procedure.
 
In the event DG AGRI does not indeed hold copies of the requested day notes, then this would amount to a gross disregard of the provisions of article 16 of Annex 2 Commission Decision of 15/11/2005 C(2005) 4416 by both DG AGRI and the Secretariat-General. There is dichotomy about such a disregard; either the administrative departments adopted the practice silently (i.e. not informing the College) or documents were indeed drawn up about the disregard. In the latter event, the Commission services would be obliged to release those documents pursuant to Regulation 1049/2001. In the event no documents would be released, then it must be presumed that the non-circulation of day notes was a silent decision of the administrative departments. In both alternatives, the disregard of article 16 of Annex 2 would call into question the practices of the Secretariat-General, and will directly undermine legal certainty as to what exactly have been Commission Decisions adopted by the written procedure in the period 2006-2010.
 
III. PRECISE DEFINITION OF DOCUMENTS, REQUESTS 11 & 12
 
The particular requests concerns documents drawn up by DG AGRI. Even though the statement of the K.2 Unit “For your information, DG AGRI complies with the general rules of the archiving policy of the Commission” is informative and appreciated, nonetheless it does not state that DG AGRI does not hold the requested documents.
 
In the application of 25 October 2013, under the heading “B. DG AGRI DOCUMENT …
SYSTEM” the applicant stated his presumption that copies of day notes were kept in an ‘electronic document management system’. He then went of to say “The notion of ‘DG AGRI electronic document management systems’ is about a functional and logical organisation of documents (….)” .
 
The K.2 Unit email of 13/11/2013 has invited again the applicant to define with precision the requested documents. For the purposes of being constructive and moving forward the applicant will reword requests under (11) and (12), placing them in a crystal-clear context, defining in precise terms the requested documents.
 
The following nine (9) Commission Decisions – for which DG AGRI had been the responsible service -  were adopted by the written procedure.
 
1. C(2006)5/F of 12/1/2006
2. C(2006)6889/F of 22/12/2006
3. C(2007)239/F of 31/01/2007
4. C(2007)6897/F of 21/12/2007
5. C(2008)554/F of 18/2/2008
6. C(2008)8864/F of 19/12/2008
7. C(2009)150/F of 28/1/2009
8. C(2009)10613/F of 18/12/2009
9. C(2010)139/F1 of 20/1/2010
 
For each of the above nine Decisions, there is a ‘document management system’ in which a scanned copy of the duly signed proposal of DG AGRI to the College to adopt by the written procedure is/was stored. Presumably, the signatory of the proposal has been a Member of the Commission.  The term ‘document management system’ is used in a broad sense and does not necessarily refers to a logical ‘system’ implemented in Documentum (the Commission-wide document management platform); it may well be a shared ‘folder’ in a computer server, or a shared folder in a Microsoft Exchange server, or even shared drive of a PC. 
 
In the event no scanned copy of a duly signed proposal is held by DG AGRI, then the term ‘document management system’ refers to the ‘system’ holding the last version of the DG AGRI proposal tabled to the College. The term is used in the broad sense of the preceding paragraph.
 
The term ‘document management system’ is defined as the computer system in which the aforesaid scanned copy, or the last version of the DG AGRI proposal, is/was held.  
 
Having regard to the definition of the term ‘document management system’ requests (11) and (12) are thus be defined as follows:
 
11. The backup and archival policy of ‘the document management system’ in the
period from 1/1/2006 to 31/3/2010.
 
12. A sample report, or equivalent, generated by ‘the document management system’ as regards an archival of documents stored in that system 2007.
 
IV. REWORDING OF REQUESTS (1) – (9)
 
The term ‘copy’ hereunder refers either to a copy of a day note duly signed by the Secretary-General, or a certified copy of a day note bearing a serial number and the name of an authorised official (who is the custodian of the original and duly signed day note).
 
Requests (1) to (9) are worded as follows:
 
1. A copy of day note held by DG AGRI concerning the Decision C(2006)5/F of 12/1/2006
 
2. A copy of day note held by DG AGRI concerning the Decision C(2006)6889/F of 22/12/2006
 
3. A copy of day note held by DG AGRI concerning the Decision C(2007)239/F of 31/01/2007
 
4. A copy of day note held by DG AGRI concerning the Decision C(2007)6897/F of 21/12/2007
5. A copy of day note held by DG AGRI concerning the Decision C(2008)554/F of 18/2/2008
 
6. A copy of day note held by DG AGRI concerning the Decision A copy of day note held by DG AGRI concerning the Decision C(2008)8864/F of 19/12/2008
 
7. A copy of day note held by DG AGRI concerning the Decision C(2009)150/F of 28/1/2009
 
8. A copy of day note held by DG AGRI concerning the Decision C(2009)10613/F of 18/12/2009
 
9. A copy of day note held by DG AGRI concerning the Decision C(2010)139/F1 of 20/1/2010
 
Request under (10) is withdrawn.
 
V. REITERATION OF REQUEST TO ATTRIBUTE A GESTDEM REFERENCE NUMBER
 
The applicant respectfully reiterates his request that DG AGRI attribute a GestDem reference number without further delays.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Mr. Charilaos. DROSOS
 
-----Original Message-----
 
Mr Drosos,
 
We refer to your e-mail dated 05/11/2013.
 
I would like to inform you that your requests of 25/10/2013 were not registered in Gestdem because the description given in them does not enable us to identify concrete documents which would correspond to your requests. According our internal rules (COMMISSION DECISION of 5 December 2001 C (2001) 3714): "If an application is imprecise, as referred to in Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the Commission shall invite the applicant to provide additional information making it possible to identify the documents requested; the deadline for reply shall run only from the time when the Commission has this information."
 
The registration of your request will be made as soon as we receive the clarifications requested.
 
Concerning the day notes, as indicated in our previous message I confirm that Day Notes are not addressed to our DG. Since 2013 you can find day notes in the public Register of the Commission documents accessible to all at the following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=list&n=10&adv=0&coteId=2&year=&number=&version=ALL&dateFrom=&dateTo=&serviceId=&documentType=&title=Note&titleLanguage=&titleSearch=ALL&sortBy=NUMBER&sortOrder=DESCI
 
However, the Notes from 2006 cannot be retrieved via this tool. In this case I would re-direct you to SG as they are in charge of the register:
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=contact
 
Please note that we already consulted the IT unit of DG AGRI since we received your request on 25/10/2013 who informed us that the request was unclear. DG AGRI uses the document management system of the Commission that is managed centrally. The local IT unit of DG AGRI is not in charge of that system nor its backup.
 
For your information, DG AGRI complies with the general rules of the archiving policy of the Commission:
http://ec.europa.eu/archival-policy/docs/edomec/2009-1643-sec_mda_en.pdf
 
http://ec.europa.eu/archival-policy/docs/edomec/2012_713_sec_en.pdf
 
We invite you once more to provide us with more detailed information on the documents which you seek to obtain, such as references, dates or periods during which the documents would have been produced, persons or bodies who drafted the documents etc…
 
If you need assistance in clarifying or specifying your application, you can contact:
 
•       by email: [email address]
•       by telephone: (+32) (0) 2 29 59894
 
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Vassiliki ANAGNOSTOU
Access to documents coordinator
 
European Commission
DG Agriculture and Rural Development
Unit K.2
 
L130 4/70
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
+32 2 29 598 94
[email address]
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
ask+[email address]
 
This message and all replies from Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) will be published on the AsktheEU.org website. For more information see our dedicated page for EU public officials at http://www.asktheeu.org/en/help/officers
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------