Ref. Ares(2019)4345000 - 08/07/2019
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Secretariat-General
Directorate C - Transparency, Efficiency & Resources
The Director
Brussels,
SG.C.1/AF
By registered mail with AR
Ms Josefina Marti
Calle de Juan Bravo 62
Madrid 28006,
Spain
Copy by email:
ask+request-6762-
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject:
Your application for access to documents – GESTDEM 2019/2055
Dear Ms Marti,
I refer to your message of 2 April 2019 in which you make a request for access to
documents, registered on the same day under the above-mentioned reference number.
Please accept our apologies for this late answer to your request.
1. SCOPE OF YOUR REQUEST
You are requesting access to, I quote, ‘[a] complete of list of all meetings held by any
member of President's Jean-Claude Juncker team/staff (including the President) with
churches, religious associations or communities (or the organisations representing them), as
well as with philosophical and non-confessional organisations, from 1 January 2014
onwards, specifying the status of the organization (church, religious association or
community, philosophical association or non-confessional association). All documents,
including all emails, minutes, reports or other documents received or drawn up before,
during or after the meetings, and any other briefing papers related to these meetings’.
The European Commission has identified the following documents as falling within the
scope of your request:
- Email sent by the Head of Cabinet of the President of the European Commission of
21 February 2019, reference Ares(2019)1077663 (hereafter ‘document 1’);
- Letter sent by the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European
Community (‘COMECE’) of 23 January 2019, reference Ares(2019)393573,
(hereafter ‘document 2’);
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/
- Email sent on behalf of the Deputy Head of Cabinet of the President of the European
Commission of 14 November 2019, reference Ares(2018)5828318, (hereafter
‘document 3’);
- Letter and attached report sent by the Office of Tibet – Brussels of 6 September
2019, reference Ares(2018)4660954, (hereafter ‘document 4’);
- Email sent by the Cabinet of the President of the European Commission of 6 March
2018, reference Ares(2018)1258137, (hereafter ‘document 5’);
- Letter sent by COMECE of 20 March 2018, reference Ares(2018)1566317,
(hereafter ‘document 6’);
- Email sent by COMECE of 19 February 2018, reference Ares(2018)951135,
(hereafter ‘document 7’);
- Email sent by the Head of Cabinet of the President of the European Commission of
20 February 2017, reference Ares(2017)907734, (hereafter ‘document 8’);
- Email and letter sent by COMECE and the Conference of European Churches
(‘CEC’) of 7 February 2017, reference Ares(2017)678731, (hereafter ‘document 9’);
- Email sent by the Head of Cabinet of the President of the European Commission in
relation to the International Charlemagne Prize of 28 October 2016, reference
Ares(2016)6169870, (hereafter ‘document 10’);
- Email sent in relation to the International Charlemagne Prize of 20 September
2016, reference Ares(2016)5454938, (hereafter ‘document 11’);
- Email sent on behalf of the Patriarch of Syria of 15 September 2016, reference
Ares(2016)5362670, (hereafter ‘document 12’);
- Email sent in relation to the International Charlemagne Prize of 4 February 2016,
reference Ares(2016)626893, (hereafter ‘document 13’);
- Email sent by the Cabinet of the President of the European Commission in relation
to the International Charlemagne Prize of 15 March 2016, reference
Ares(2016)1297514, (hereafter ‘document 14’);
- Email exchanges between the European Jewish Congress and the Cabinet of the
President of the European Commission of January 2016, reference
Ares(2016)188359, (hereafter ‘document 15’);
- Further email exchanges between the European Jewish Congress and the Cabinet of
the President of the European Commission of January 2016, reference
Ares(2016)48499, (hereafter ‘document 16’);
- Letter sent by the ‘Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland‘ (‘EKD‘) of 18 September
2015, reference Ares(2015)3929888, (hereafter ‘document 17’);
- Email sent by the Head of Cabinet of 26 February 2015, reference
Ares(2015)832364, (hereafter ‘document 18’);
- Further email exchanges between the Cabinet of the President of the European
Commission and EKD of February 2015, reference Ares(2015)452026, (hereafter
‘document 19’).
2. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER REGULATION (EC) NO 1049/2001
Following our assessment, I hereby inform you that wide partial access is granted to the
requested documents, subject only to the redaction of personal data, in accordance with
2
Article 4(1)(b) (protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual) of Regulation (EC)
No 1049/2001, for the reasons set out below.
2.1. 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’.
The applicable legislation in this field is 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/EC (hereafter ‘Regulation (EU) 2018/1725’).1
In its judgment in Case C-28/08 P (
Bavarian Lager)2, the Court of Justice ruled that when a
request is made for access to documents containing personal data, the Data Protection
Regulation becomes fully applicable.
Please note that, as from 11 December 2018, Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 has been
repealed by 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.
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’.3
Please note that the documents to which you request access, contain the names, surnames
and contact details of people who are not considered as public figures, nor are the main
representatives of the organisations concerned. They contain the personal data of staff
members of the European Commission not holding any senior management positions as
well.
The names, surnames and contact details 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.
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
1
Official Journal L 205 of 21.11.2018, p. 39.
2
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 June 2010,
European Commission v The Bavarian Lager Co.
Ltd, Case C-28/08 P, EU:C:2010:378, paragraph 59.
3 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.
3
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.4 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 request, you do not put forward any arguments to establish the necessity to have the
data transmitted for a specific purpose in the public interest.
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 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 individual concerned would not be prejudiced by
disclosure of the personal data concerned.
2.1. Assessment of the remaining parts of your request
Regarding the part of your request, relating to ‘‘[a] complete of list of all meetings held by
any member of President's Jean-Claude Juncker team/staff (including the President) with
churches, religious associations or communities (or the organisations representing them), as
well as with philosophical and non-confessional organisations, from 1 January 2014
onwards, specifying the status of the organization (church, religious association or
community, philosophical association or non-confessional association)’, we regret to inform
4 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.
4
you that the European Commission does not hold such documents that would correspond to
the description given in your application.
Please note however that information about the President’s participation in public events
and meetings is published via his public agenda, available at the following address:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-
2019/calendar_en?field_editorial_section_multiple_tid=163
As specified in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the right of access as
defined in that regulation applies only to existing documents in the possession of the
institution. I would like to refer in this respect to the judgment of the Court of Justice in
Case C-127/13 P (
Strack v Commission), according to which ‘[n]either Article 11 of
Regulation 1049/2001 nor the obligation of assistance in Article 6(2) thereof, can oblige
an institution to create a document for which it has been asked to grant access but which
does not exist’.5
The above-mentioned conclusion has been confirmed in Case C-491/15 P (
Typke v
Commission), where the Court of Justice held that ‘the right of access to documents of
the institutions applies only to existing documents in the possession of the institution
concerned and […] Regulation No 1049/2001 may not be relied upon to oblige an
institution to create a document which does not exist. It follows that, […], an application
for access that would require the Commission to create a new document, even if that
document were based on information already appearing in existing documents held by it,
falls outside the framework of Regulation No 1049/2001’.6
Given that the European Commission does not hold any documents corresponding to the
description given in your application, nor is obliged to create a document, it is not in a
position to fulfil your request.
3.
OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSURE
Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not include the possibility for the
exception defined therein to be set aside by an overriding public interest.
4.
PARTIAL ACCESS
Please note that partial access is granted to the requested documents.
5. MEANS OF REDRESS
In case you would disagree with the assessment that the redacted data are personal data
which can only be disclosed if such disclosure is legitimate under the applicable rules on the
5 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014,
Strack v Commission, C-127/13 P,
EU:C:2014:2250, paragraph 46.
6 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 January 2017,
Typke v Commission, C-491/15 P, EU:C:2017:5,
paragraph 31.
5
protection of personal data, you are entitled, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation
(EC) No 1049/2001, to submit a confirmatory application requesting the 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 Commission at the following address:
European Commission
Secretariat-General
Unit C.1. ‘Transparency, Document Management and Access to Documents’
BERL 7/076
B-1049 Brussels,
or by email to:
xxxxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx
Yours faithfully,
Tatjana VERRIER
Director
Enclosures: (19)
6
Electronically signed on 05/07/2019 17:50 (UTC+02) in accordance with article 4.2 (Validity of electronic documents) of Commission Decision 2004/563
Document Outline