Ref. Ares(2019)379793 - 23/01/2019
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
SECRETARIAT-GENERAL
Directorate C - Transparency, Efficiency & Resources
The Director
Brussels,
SG.C/VT
Mr Edward Collins
40 Bermondsey Street
London
United Kingdom
Copy by e-mail: ask+request-6190-
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject:
Your application for access to documents pursuant to Regulation No
1049/20011 – ref. GestDem 2018/6732
Dear Mr Collins,
I refer to your application for access to documents of 13 December 2018, registered on
the same day under the above-mentioned reference number.
You request access to ʻall documentation (including but not limited to all email
correspondence, attendance lists, agendas, background papers and minutes/notes) relating
to the meeting between BP p.l.c. and Telmo Baltazar, Cabinet member of Jean-Claude
Juncker on 28/11/2018ʼ.
1.
SCOPE OF THE REQUEST
The European Commission has identified the following documents as falling under the
scope of your request:
e-mail exchange between the Member of Cabinet of President Juncker, Telmo
BALTAZAR, and a representative of BP p.l.c. of 1 and 2 November 2018,
Ares(2018)6535799;
letter of a representative of BP p.l.c. to Telmo BALTAZAR of 28 November
2018, Ares(2018)6535799.
1 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and
Commission documents.
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/
With regard to your request to ‘produce the documents on a rolling basis’, I would like to
inform you that the European Commission does not hold any further documents that
correspond to the description given in your application. Article 2(3) of Regulation No
1049/2001 provides that the right of access to documents as laid down in that regulation
applies only to existing documents in the possession of the institution. Indeed, the
European Commission cannot engage itself, in response to an application for access to
documents, to producing documents in the future.
2.
ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER REGULATION NO 1049/2001
Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 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’.
The applicable legislation in this field is Regulation (EC) No 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/EC2.
Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2018/1725 provides that personal data ‘means any
information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person […]’. The Court of
Justice ruled that
any information, which due to its content, purpose or effect, is linked to a
particular person, qualifies as personal data.3
In the
Rechnungshof case law, the Court of Justice further confirmed that ‘there is no reason
of principle to justify excluding activities of a professional […] nature from the notion of
private life’.4
Accordingly, the names, signatures, functions, telephones numbers and/or initials pertaining
to members of the staff of an institution as well as of the representatives of a third party
constitute personal data.5
In this instance, the documents to which you request access contain personal data, in
particular, names, functions, telephone numbers and email addresses of European
Commission officials who are not part of the senior management and of representatives of
BP p.l.c. and another third party.
2 Official Journal L 205 of 21.11.2018, page 39, hereafter ‘Regulation No 2018/1725’.
3 Judgment of 20 December 2017,
C-434/16, Peter Novak v Data Protection Commissioner,
EU:T:2018:560, paragraphs 33-35.
4 Judgment of 20 May 2003, C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01,
Rechnungshof v Österreichischer
Rundfunk and others, EU:C:2003:294, paragraph
73.
5 Judgment of 19 September
2018, T-39/17, Port de Brest v Commission, EU:T:2018:560,
paragraphs
43-44.
2
Furthermore, document 1 contains the link to a website with the biography of the person
concerned the disclosure of which would make the data subject identifiable.
Finally, document 2 contains a handwritten signature as well as a handwritten salutation and
a personal remark, which are biometric data. The content of the salutation and the personal
remark is also to be considered as personal data in the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation
No 2018/1725, as it constitutes information relating to an identifiable natural person.
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation No 2018/1725, ‘personal data shall only be
transmitted to recipients established in the Union other than Union institutions and bodies if
[…] the 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 both fulfilled and the processing constitutes lawful processing
in accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of Regulation No 2018/1725, can the
transmission of personal data occur.
In your 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, please note that there are reasons to assume that the legitimate
interests of the data subjects concerned would be prejudiced by 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 contacts.
As to the handwritten signature, salutation and personal remark contained in document 2,
which constitute biometric data, there is a risk that their disclosure would prejudice the
legitimate interests of the person concerned.
Consequently, I conclude that, pursuant to Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001,
access cannot be granted to the personal data included in the requested documents, as the
need to obtain access thereto for a purpose in the public interest has not been substantiated
and there is no reason to consider that the legitimate interests of the individuals concerned
would not be prejudiced by disclosure of the personal data concerned.
Please note that the exception provided under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No
1049/2001 is of an absolute nature and does not include the possibility to be set aside by
an overriding public interest.
3
3.
PARTIAL ACCESS
In accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, partial access is hereby
granted to the two documents mentioned above, subject to the redaction of personal data,
on the basis of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
4.
MEANS OF REDRESS
Pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, you are entitled to submit a
confirmatory application requesting the European Commission to review this position.
Such a confirmatory application should be addressed within 15 working days upon
receipt of this letter to the Secretariat-General of the European Commission at the
following address:
European Commission
Secretary-General
Transparency, Document Management & Access to Documents (SG.C.1)
BERL 7/076
B-1049 Brussels
or by email to
: xxxxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx.
Yours sincerely,
Tatjana VERRIER
Enclosures:
(2)
4
Electronically signed on 22/01/2019 13:11 (UTC+01) in accordance with article 4.2 (Validity of electronic documents) of Commission Decision 2004/563
Document Outline