Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting the communication of all exchanges (emails, text and instant messages, letters, meeting agendas, meetings minutes, position papers sent, and any other material) that have taken place over the last 12 months between individuals of the European Commission, at all levels of function (such as Mr. Marco Valetta, Head of the EU Delegation to the IOTC) involved at the IOTC, in fishing agreements’ matters, and the management of tropical tuna fisheries in general, with the lobbies Orthongel, Cepesca, Opagac, Anabac, Europêche, and UAPF, as well as with all the companies that are members of these structures (e.g. CFTO, Sapmer, Albacora, Echebastar, etc.).

Should these documents contain personal data, it is necessary that BLOOM still gets access to complete information including personal data. We are aware that Article 4 b) 1) provides an exception to freedom of information in case the 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. Article 9 1) b) of the Data Protection regulation states that “the recipient establishes that it is necessary to have the data transmitted for a specific purpose in the public interest”. According to the 28 recital of the regulation mentioned above, “the specific purpose in the public interest could relate to the transparency of Union institutions and bodies”.

As a marine conservation NGO, BLOOM fights opacity in the fishing sector. We request access to complete information and data, including personal data on Commission staff members at every level, and on any other person with whom they have had contacts regarding the topic of interest here. Our request of unredacted data is in line with the specific purpose of public interest according to Article 9 1) b) of the Data Protection regulation.
Please note that I prefer to receive the requested documents in digital format rather than physical mail.
Sincerely,
Claire Nouvian
Director, BLOOM
16 rue Martel 75010 Paris France

Dear Maritime Affairs and Fisheries,

I confirm that the request was not intended to be geographically restricted, i.e. it should be interpreted as a request to access exchanges between individuals involved at the IOTC, in SPFAs across the oceans, and management of tropical tuna fisheries in general (i.e. negotiations on quotas and fishing access rights, vessel reflagging policies, control obligations, subsidization, requests to be reflected in official positions etc.). For the present request, I would like to focus on individuals involved in tropical tuna fisheries only.

Yours faithfully,

Claire Nouvian

Dear Maritime Affairs and Fisheries,
Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.

In accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament Council and Commission documents, BLOOM hereby submits a confirmatory application regarding the Commission's initial reply to its request for documents with reference EASE 2023/1179.
On 21 February, BLOOM requested: “communication of all exchanges (emails, text and instant messages, letters, meeting agendas, meetings minutes, position papers sent, and any other material) that have taken place over the last 12 months between individuals of the European Commission, at all levels of function (such as Mr. Marco Valetta, Head of the EU Delegation to the IOTC) involved at the IOTC, in fishing agreements’ matters, and the management of tropical tuna fisheries in general, with the lobbies Orthongel, Cepesca, Opagac, Anabac, Europêche, and UAPF, as well as with all the companies that are members of these structures (e.g. CFTO, Sapmer, Albacora, Echebastar, etc)”.

The Commission asked BLOOM to specify our request, which was done on 6 March 2023. The Commission sent its response on 9 May 2023, disclosing several documents relevant to the request, for which BLOOM is grateful. However, from a list of 27 documents, only 6 were fully disclosed, the others partially disclosed or not disclosed at all.
We strongly disagree with this assessment and think that it would be in the public’s interest to release all these documents. Furthermore, we believe that the Commission has not provided adequate justification for not releasing these documents.

Firstly, we would like to remind you that Article 15 of the TFEU states that “In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union's institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.” As per this article, EU institutions are under the obligation to take decisions that are as transparent and taken as closely to citizens as possible.
Right of access to EU documents is recognized as a fundamental right and all exceptions must be interpreted strictly, as a Judge from the Court of Justice said that: “those exceptions must be construed and applied strictly so as not to defeat the application of the general principle enshrined in that regulation” (Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2005, Sison v Council of the European Union, Joined cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03, paragraph 45).

- Regarding the documents whose non-disclosure was justified by Article 4 (2) of the 1049/2001 Regulation, i.e. documents n. 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 9, 9.1, 12, 12.1, 13, 13.1, 14 and 15:

We argue that the protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property, cannot be invoked here as these documents are linked to the work of EU institutions and decision-making processes that must be transparent. As these documents were identified as being linked to our request and to the regulations and decisions taken by EU institutions concerning tropical fishing, it is essential that access to them be granted. Indeed, there should be no place for secretive lobbying on the Commission, especially by those with commercial interests in EU policymaking.

- Regarding the documents whose non-disclosure was justified by Article 4 (3) of the 1049/2001 Regulation, i.e. documents n. 2, 2.2, 2.3, 8, 8.1, 9, 9.1, 17, 20, 20.1 and 25:

Their full disclosure appears to have been prevented by the protection of the institution’s on-going decision processes, as discussions on fishing aggregating devices (FADs) and tropical tunas were still ongoing in international fora. Today, this justification is no longer valid as the IOTC adopted resolution 23/02 on the management of drifting FADs last February, which still holds following IOTC’s annual meeting (15-18 May). By objecting to this Resolution on 11 April 2023, the European Commission also confirmed that this process was over for them. As a result, there is currently no ongoing decision-making process regarding FADs and IOTC. Moreover, releasing these documents would also enable civil society to understand why the Commission chose not to follow international recommendations that are in line with the objectives of the CFP, especially the precaution principle, and its own objectives for sustainable fisheries.
For all these reasons, BLOOM believes that access to all the documents mentioned above must be granted.

A full history of my request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/infor...

Yours faithfully,
Claire Nouvian
BLOOM Association
16 Rue Martel
75010 PARIS - FRANCE

Dear Maritime Affairs and Fisheries,
Our confirmatory application to 2023/1179 was submitted on 29/05/2023. On the 20/06/2023, you extended the reply time limit to the 12/07/2023 but, almost 10 days later, we have not heard from you. Please can you indicate when we will receive the reply? We hope it will be very imminently.
Yours faithfully,

Claire Nouvian
BLOOM Association
16 Rue Martel
75010 PARIS