Legal Advice on Lobby Register

Helen Darbishire

Dear Secretariat General,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting full access to the Legal Advice generated by and/or provided to the Commission regarding the lobby register, inlcuding any and all legal advice that considers the treaty basis for the register and whether or not it could be mandatory.

There is a an overriding public interest in having this legal advice made public at this time, given the ongoing debate about the future of the lobby register, including the public consulation currenlty under way. This information is needed, inter alia, for citizens, civil society groups (including the organisation that I represent), and other stakeholders to participate fully in the debate about the nature of the register, as well as to ensure transparency of the decision-making process related to it so that public officials can be held to account over the eventual decisions made about the register.

Yours faithfully,
Helen
**********************
Helen Darbishire
Access Info Europe

Secretariat General of the European Commission

1 Attachment

Dear Mrs Darbishire,

 

Thank you for your request for access to documents.

Unfortunately you have not indicated your postal address that is required
for registering and handling your request in line with the procedural
requirements.

Could you confirm that your address is : Cava San Miguel 8 4C, 28005
Madrid

Pending your reply, we reserve the right to refuse the registration of
your request.

You may, of course, use directly the electronic form for entering your
request:

[1]http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...

 

Best regards,

 

ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS TEAM
[2]cid:image001.gif@01D18A86.5C3DA690
European Commission
Secretariat General

Unit B4 - Transparency

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Darbishire [mailto:[FOI #2959 email]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 7:12 PM
To: SG ACCES DOCUMENTS
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Legal Advice on Lobby Register

 

Dear Secretariat General,

 

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in
Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting full access to the Legal Advice
generated by and/or provided to the Commission regarding the lobby
register, inlcuding any and all legal advice that considers the treaty
basis for the register and whether or not it could be mandatory.

 

There is a an overriding public interest in having this legal advice made
public at this time, given the ongoing debate about the future of the
lobby register, including the public consulation currenlty under way. This
information is needed, inter alia, for citizens, civil society groups
(including the organisation that I represent), and other stakeholders to
participate fully in the debate about the nature of the register, as well
as to ensure transparency of the decision-making process related to it so
that public officials can be held to account over the eventual decisions
made about the register.

 

Yours faithfully,

Helen

**********************

Helen Darbishire

Access Info Europe

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is a request for access to information under Article 15 of the TFEU
and, where applicable, Regulation 1049/2001 which has been sent via the
AsktheEU.org website.

 

Please kindly use this email address for all replies to this request:
[3][FOI #2959 email]

 

If [4][SG request email] is the wrong address for information
requests to Secretariat General, please tell the AsktheEU.org team on
email [5][email address]

 

This message and all replies from Secretariat General will be published on
the AsktheEU.org website. For more information see our dedicated page for
EU public officials at [6]http://www.asktheeu.org/en/help/officers

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

References

Visible links
1. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
3. mailto:[FOI #2959 email]
4. mailto:[SG request email]
5. mailto:[AsktheEU.org contact email]
6. http://www.asktheeu.org/en/help/officers

hide quoted sections

Helen Darbishire

Dear Secretariat General, Access to Documents Team

Yes, I can confirm that my address remains the same and that your postal communications, registered mail, and courrier deliveries do reach me.

That said, I note that I do prefer to receive copies of all documents electronically, and preferably in machine-readable format.

Yours faithfully,
Helen
Helen Darbishire (Ms)
Access Info Europe

Secretariat General of the European Commission

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Darbishire,

 

Thank you for your request dated  17/05/2016.µ

We hereby acknowledge receipt of your application for access to documents,
which was registered on 19/05/2016  under reference number GestDem 
2016/2791

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
09/06/2016.

In case this time limit needs to be extended, you will be informed in due
course.

 

Best regards,

 

ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS TEAM
[1]cid:image001.gif@01D1AAC8.E6AD8E50
European Commission
Secretariat General

Unit B4 - Transparency

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Darbishire [mailto:[FOI #2959 email]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 5:57 PM
To: SG ACCES DOCUMENTS
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Legal Advice on Lobby
Register

 

Dear Secretariat General, Access to Documents Team

 

Yes, I can confirm that my address remains the same and that your postal
communications, registered mail, and courrier deliveries do reach me.

 

That said, I note that I do prefer to receive copies of all documents
electronically, and preferably in machine-readable format.

 

Yours faithfully,

Helen

Helen Darbishire (Ms)

Access Info Europe

 

-----Original Message-----

 

Dear Mrs Darbishire,

 

 

 

Thank you for your request for access to documents.

 

Unfortunately you have not indicated your postal address that is required

for registering and handling your request in line with the procedural

requirements.

 

Could you confirm that your address is : Cava San Miguel 8 4C, 28005

Madrid

 

Pending your reply, we reserve the right to refuse the registration of

your request.

 

You may, of course, use directly the electronic form for entering your

request:

 

[1][2]http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...

 

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS TEAM

[2][3]cid:image001.gif@01D18A86.5C3DA690

European Commission

Secretariat General

 

Unit B4 - Transparency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[4][FOI #2959 email]

 

This message and all replies from Secretariat General will be published on
the AsktheEU.org website. For more information see our dedicated page for
EU public officials at [5]http://www.asktheeu.org/en/help/officers

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

References

Visible links
2. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
3. file:///tmp/cid:image001.gif@01D18A86.5C3DA690
4. mailto:[FOI #2959 email]
5. http://www.asktheeu.org/en/help/officers

hide quoted sections

Secretariat General of the European Commission

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Darbishire,

I refer to your application for access to documents under Regulation (EC)
No 1049/2001.

Your application is currently being handled by the Legal Service. However,
in view of the number and nature of the applications for access to
documents the Legal Service is dealing with currently, we will not be in a
position to complete the processing of your request within the time limit
of 15 working days, which expires today.

In these circumstances, we have to extend the prescribed period by another
15 working days. The new deadline expires on 30 June 2016.

We apologise for this delay and for any inconvenience this may cause.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Maria SKYLODIMOU

 

[1]cid:image001.gif@01D1747B.A20B1610
European Commission
Legal Service

BERL 03/004
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium

+32 229 - 13639
[2]Maria.SKYLODIMOU[3]@ec.europa.eu

 

 

 

References

Visible links
2. mailto:maria.skylodimou
3. mailto:[email address]

Helen Darbishire

Dear Maria Skylodimou
Thank you for the update. I look forward to receiving the information on or before 30 June.
Best,
Helen Darbishire
Access Info Europe

Secretariat General of the European Commission

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Darbishire,

 

We refer to your request of 17 May 2016 for access to documents under
Regulation Nº 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament,
Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.05.2001, page 43).

The extended deadline to reply to your request expires today.  Your
application is currently being handled, but unfortunately we will not be
in a position to fully complete the handling of your application within
this extended deadline.

Please be assured that we will do our utmost to send you the reply to your
request as soon as possible.

 

We apologise for this additional delay and for any inconvenience this may
cause.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Maria SKYLODIMOU

 

[1]cid:image001.gif@01D1747B.A20B1610
European Commission
Legal Service

BERL 03/004
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium

+32 229 - 13639
[2]Maria.SKYLODIMOU[3]@ec.europa.eu

 

 

References

Visible links
2. mailto:maria.skylodimou
3. mailto:[email address]

Secretariat General of the European Commission

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Darbishire,

 

Following our telephone discussion, we refer to your request for access to
documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for which the extended
deadline expired on 30 June 2016.

We would like to inform you that the reply has been submitted for
consultation and approval by the competent lawyers and we will be sending
it to you by the end of this week.

 

We would like to apologise for this additional delay and for any
inconvenience this may cause.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Maria SKYLODIMOU

 

[1]cid:image001.gif@01D1747B.A20B1610
European Commission
Legal Service

BERL 03/004
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium

+32 229 - 13639
[2]Maria.SKYLODIMOU[3]@ec.europa.eu

 

 

References

Visible links
2. mailto:maria.skylodimou
3. mailto:[email address]

Helen Darbishire

Dear Maria Skylodimou,

Many thanks for the update.

Sincerely,

Helen Darbishire

Secretariat General of the European Commission

5 Attachments

Dear Ms Darbishire,

 

Please find attached a  copy of the Legal Service's reply to your request
for access to documents together with its enclosures.

 

The original version of the reply will be sent to you by certified mail.
Please note that the enclosures are transmitted only by e-mail.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Maria SKYLODIMOU

 

[1]cid:image001.gif@01D1747B.A20B1610
European Commission
Legal Service

BERL 03/004
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium

+32 229 - 13639
[2]Maria.SKYLODIMOU[3]@ec.europa.eu

 

 

References

Visible links
2. mailto:maria.skylodimou
3. mailto:[email address]

European Commission
Secretary-General
Transparency unit SG-B-4
BERL 5/327
B-1049 Brussels
BELGIUM

Madrid, 18 August 2016

Subject: Request for access to documents - confirmatory application
Reference number: GestDem 2016/2791

Dear Secretary General,

Following my request for access to documents of 17 May 2016, I am hereby submitting a confirmatory application in accordance with Article 7(2)[1] and 7(4)[2] of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (hereinafter “Regulation 1049/2001” or “the Regulation”).

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On 17 May 2016 I requested, via the AsktheEU.org portal, full access to the legal advice generated by and/or provided to the European Commission (the “Commission”) regarding the lobby register, including any and all legal advice that considers the Treaty basis for the register and whether or not it could be mandatory. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the application on 19 May 2016.
The request and the full history can be found here: https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/lega...

Despite an obligation to handle my application within 15 working days, on the date the deadline was meant to expire, 9 June 2016, the Commission extended the deadline by another 15 working days, without providing detailed reasons as to why, meaning that the new deadline was to expire on 30 June 2016.

On 30 June 2016, the date that the second deadline was supposed to expire, the Commission informed me that it was still in the process of handling of my application and that it would send me a reply “as soon as possible,” without giving any indication of when this would be.

Half a month after the missed second deadline, on 18 July 2016, the Commission informed me that it would be sending its reply “by the end of this week”. The Commission failed to reply by the end of the week.

I finally received a reply, by letter of 27 July 2016, over two months following the date of the request. In its reply, the Commission granted partial access to three European Commission Legal Service documents.[3]
The documents received have been heavily redacted, to the extent that, while they do contain some factual and background information that is generally already in the public domain, they provide no insight into the nature, scope, or conclusions of the legal advice provided by the Legal Services, and hence entirely fail to satisfy the request.

II. PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS

Before addressing the Commission’s substantive assessment of my request, it is worth drawing to the Commission’s attention its handling of my request, which fell well below the standard set in Regulation 1049/2001, infringing Articles 7(1) and 7(3).

First, Articles 7(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 obliges the institution to handle applications for access to documents “promptly”. Taking from 19 May 2016, the date the Commission acknowledged receipt of the application, to 27 July 2016, the date of the reply, can in no way be regarded as ‘prompt’.

Second, Article 7(3) of the Regulation states that the institution may only extend the 15 working day deadline to reply in “exceptional cases”, citing as an example where there is “an application relating to a very long document or to a very large number of documents”. My application merely related to three documents, consisting of 2, 5 and 6 pages, rather than a ‘very long document’ or a ‘very large number of documents’ as is required by the Regulation to justify extending the deadline. It is therefore clear that there was no exceptional case justifying extending the Commission’s deadline.

Third, Article 7(3) of the Regulation states that this 15 working day time limit may be extended provided that “detailed reasons are given”. However, as reason for the extension, the Commission simply stated in its reply letter that: “in view of the number and nature of the applications for access to documents the Legal Service is dealing with currently, we will not be in a position to complete the processing of your request within the time limit of 15 working days, which expires today” (emphasis added). In using such general and imprecise language, it is difficult, under any possible reading of Article 7(3) to see this explanation by the Commission as satisfying the requirement that the reasons for the extension be ‘detailed’.

Fourth, despite already granting itself a 15 working day extension to reply—contrary to Articles 7(1) and 7(3), as explained above—the Commission extended its deadline twice more, completely outside the limits of its power under Regulation 1049/2001. The third deadline extension, which it granted itself on 30 June 2016, did not even give an indication of when it was going send the reply. Then on 18 July 2016, the Commission said it would reply “by the end of this week”, which it did not.

Whilst we realise that, at this juncture, the Commission can do nothing to reverse the breach of the timeframes that has already occurred, and recognising that a confirmatory application is not the vehicle for a further request for documents, we do nevertheless ask that in your response, you address the question of what the Commission is doing to solve the problem of serious delays in responding to requests. We further ask, given (as we argue below) the high public interest in this particular access to documents request, that you respond to this confirmatory application within the 15 working days stipulated by Regulation 1049/2001.

III. SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT

It should be stated at the outset that, in accordance with recital 11 of Regulation 1049/2001, the general principle is that “all documents of the institutions should be accessible to the public.” The burden is therefore on the institution to prove to the requisite legal standard that full disclosure of the three documents at issue would undermine the protection of legal advice (Article 4(2) of the Regulation) and—as regards documents relating to a matter where the decision has not been taken by the Commission—would seriously undermine the Commission’s decision-making process (Article 4(3) of the Regulation).

A. Protection of legal advice and of the decision making process

It has been established by the Court of Justice that the reasons for any decision based on the exceptions of Article 4 of the Regulation must be stated by the institution.[4] If an institution decides to deny full access to a document, it must explain two things:

“first, how access to that document could specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected by an exception laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 relied on by that institution and, secondly, in the situations referred to in Article 4(2) and (3) of that regulation, whether or not there is an overriding public interest that might nevertheless justify disclosure of the document concerned” (emphasis added).[5]

It will first be argued that full access to the three documents in question does not undermine the protection of legal advice or the institution’s decision making process. In the alternative, if it were to be regarded that disclosure would undermine the given interest (which I argue is not the case), there would nevertheless be an overriding public interest in fully disclosing the documents.

i. Access to the documents does not specifically and effectively undermine the protection of legal advice or the institution’s decision making process

- Article 4(2): Legal advice

The Commission does not explain how exactly disclosure of each of the three documents could specifically and effectively undermine the protection of legal advice.

The Court in the above cited Sweden and Turco v Council (“Turco”) case condemned the Council for relying on “mere assertions, which were in no way substantiated by detailed arguments” and stated that “there would appear to be no real risk that is reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical of that interest being undermined.”

It is wholly apparent that the Commission is, like the Council in Turco, relying on unsubstantiated assertions, despite the burden being on the Institution—rather than the person seeking access to the documents—to demonstrate why it should benefit from an exception to the general rule that all documents of the institutions should be accessible to the public. For example, it is not clear how disclosure of each of the three documents would ‘prejudice’ the Legal Service’s capacity to assist the Commission, or how it would ‘deprive’ the College of Commissioners of an element in the decision-making process.

The Commission states that “full disclosure of the documents would make known to the public an internal legal opinion in a matter of a sensitive nature, drafted under the responsibility of the Legal Service and intended exclusively for the Commission’s Cabinet responsible for the matter and for the Secretariat-General”.

We first underline that, as stated in recital 11, cited above, there is a general presumption that all documents are public, and hence neither the treaties nor Regulation 1049/2001 permit the concept of “internal” document and hence do not permit the creation of documents which are prima facie presumed never to be accessible to the public.

Although the Court has stated that refusal to disclose a particularly sensitive legal opinion, in the context of a legislative process, may be justified, “in such a case, it is incumbent on the institution concerned to give a detailed statement of reasons for such a refusal” (emphasis added). [6] In the Commission’s reply, there is no such ‘detailed’ statement of reasons, firstly, as to why the issue is ‘sensitive’ as compared to other issues that the institution deals with, or, secondly, precisely how the disclosure of the opinion would undermine the protection of legal advice. We note that, while a matter of high importance in terms of ensuring the integrity of and trust in European Union decision making, there is nothing about the lobby register that is particularly sensitive compared with, for example, matters of public security or the fight against terrorism.

Consequently, the Commission has not established that access to each of the three documents at issue could specifically and effectively undermine the protection of legal advice.

The Commission further argues that some of the information contained in the legal advice is ‘of a particularly wide scope’. The Court has accepted that in some instances there may grounds for refusing to disclose a particular legal opinion “having a particularly wide scope that goes beyond the context of the legislative process in question.”[7] Once again, however, the burden is on the institution to give a detailed statement of reasons for the refusal, which in this case the Commission has failed to do, and to indicate to which parts of the documents this grounds for the exception applies. We hereby ask the Commission to confirm whether there is any legal advice in the requested documents that does not relate to the lobby register.

- Article 4(3): The institution’s decision making process

As above, the Commission does not explain how exactly disclosure of each of the three documents could specifically and effectively undermine its decision-making process. The Commission simply states that full disclosure of each of the three documents would “severely reduce the Commission's capacity to take a decision after frank and unbiased internal discussion, free from external interferences, affecting, thus, seriously its decision-making process.” It is far from clear how disclosure would affect its capacity to take a decision on this issue as there is a distinction between the legal advice itself and the Commission’s consideration of that legal advice.

We note that this particular decision-making process is not of the nature that requires it to be carried out in isolation such as, for example, a decision on allocating a tender in a public procurement process after the bids are in. Indeed, this is a decision-making process in which opinions have already been sought from the wider public through a public consultation, and there is an ongoing public debate. Such input enriches the Commissions internal discussions and does not prevent Commission officials from reaching conclusions as to what is in the public interest in a professional and independent manner. None of this is related to public disclosure of the legal advice.

Consequently, the Commission has not established that access to each of the three documents at issue could specifically and effectively undermine its decision making process.

ii. There is an overriding public interest in disclosure

As stated above, this is an alternative argument, in that even if it were to be regarded that disclosure would undermine the given interest, there would nevertheless be an overriding public interest in fully disclosing the documents.

The Commission stated in its reply that "the transparency register is indeed an initiative of public interest". The Commission stated however that there are "no elements capable of showing the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the withheld parts of the documents that would outweigh the public interest in the protection of legal advice and of the decision-making process."

Set out below are the elements that provide evidence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the withheld parts of the documents:

- Overriding public interest in a balanced and informed public debate to facilitate better decision making

There is overwhelming public support for a mandatory transparency register; 80% of EU citizens agree there should be mandatory regulation of lobbying.[8] The European Ombudsman[9] as well as civil society organisations, including leading groups such as ALTER EU and Transparency International, have taken a clear position in favour of a legally-binding register. Independent legal advice commissioned by ALTER EU concluded that there is a legal basis for a mandatory register.[10]

The European Parliament, the only directly-elected body of the EU institutions and representative of EU citizens, has also declared since 2008 that it prefers a legally-binding transparency register "on the basis of Article 352 TFEU".[11] On the other hand, the Commission in its transparency register roadmap outlined a "choice of IIA instrument" as the more appropriate option.[12] The path being taken by the Commission diverges from the view held by many stakeholders and citizens that reform of the transparency register need be based on Article 352 TFEU.

It should also be noted that the Court stated in Turco that openness “contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinize all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act. The possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights.”[13] By not sharing its legal assessment of an initiative of public interest, the European Commission is stymying public debate on this topic, as the public is prevented from discussing and from comparing and contrasting the different legal perspectives.

There exists an overriding public interest in having the documents made fully public in order to allow an informed public debate on the reform of the transparency register.

- Overriding public interest in obtaining the best possible outcome in transparency register reform

The current register system contains various loopholes and deficiencies in serving the purpose for which it was created: to know what interests are being represented at EU level, who represents those interests, and with what budgets.

In 2015, Transparency International filed 4,253 official complaints on inaccurate or implausible entries (around half of the total number of entries at the time),[14] and ALTER EU has also published studies on loopholes concerning, for example, a number of law firms who are not registered in spite of the fact that they also carry out lobbying activities.[15] There is also a need to expand the scope of the register regime to include Permanent Representations and the Council in as lobbying also is directed towards them.[16]

The Commission’s recent public consultation on the register sought input on “what can be improved and how, in order to ensure that the Register fulfils its full potential.”[17] In order to find the optimal path to take to improve the register, there is therefore an overriding public interest in full access to the requested documents in order to understand the Commission’s pursuit of an Inter-Institutional Agreement despite criticism that such a path will not lead to a closing of many of the loopholes and deficiencies in the current system. Such access is also in the public interest given the European Parliament’s preference for a legally-binding mechanism. There is an overriding public interest in knowing, for example, if the Commission may have suppressed one option in favour of another which would produce a weaker outcome.

It is essential that the public be able to access the policy options in order to ensure that the path taken by the Commission to address the reform of the transparency register is indeed, optimal.

- Overriding public interest in ensuring accountability of EU institutions and citizen participation

According to Article 15(1) TFEU, “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.”[18]

Further, according to recital 2 of Regulation 1049/2001: “Openness enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system. Openness contributes to strengthening the principles of democracy and respect for fundamental rights as laid down in Article 6 of the EU Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.”

Indeed, the Transparency Register website states that "The decision-making process must be transparent to allow for proper scrutiny and to ensure that the Union’s institutions are accountable."[19]

The overriding public interest in full publication of the documents requested derives from the public’s right to good governance and to hold public bodies accountable, as guaranteed by the EU Treaties. Without access to the documents requested, it is impossible for the public to hold the Commission accountable for pursuing the Inter-Institutional Agreement outlined in its roadmap as opposed to a legislative proposal.[20]

The overriding public interest in full access to the requested documents is also supported by the public’s right to participate in the decision-making process, as guaranteed by the EU treaties. Without full access to the documents, the public is unable to make an informed opinion on the path taken by the Commission to reform the transparency register and is hence prevented from exercising its fundamental right to freedom of expression.[21] Hence, if the public is unable to make an informed opinion due to the lack of necessary information, it is unable to exercise its right to participate effectively in the decision making process (informally or formally such as through public consultations).

iii. Failure to indicate which exception applies to which parts of which document

The Commission has redacted the documents based on the two exceptions invoked but has failed to indicate whether all the exceptions apply to all the redacted text of all the documents, or whether there are parts which, for example, fall under only the decision-making exception and not that for protection of legal advice.

B. Protection of personal data

For the purposes of this request, the expunged personal data does not need to be transferred to me.

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the arguments above, I hereby request full access to the three documents with reference numbers JUR(2006)30417, JUR(2007)30478 and Ares(2013)3191712.

Yours faithfully,

Helen Darbishire
Access Info Europe

FOOTNOTES:

[1] “In the event of a total or partial refusal, the applicant may, within 15 working days of receiving the institution's reply, make a confirmatory application asking the institution to reconsider its position.”
[2] “Failure by the institution to reply within the prescribed time-limit shall entitle the applicant to make a confirmatory application.”
[3] Note of the Legal Service to the Secretary General of 12 September 2006 (reference JUR(2006)30417); Note of the Legal Service to the Secretariat General of 17 September 2007(reference JUR(2007)30478); Note of the Legal Service to the Head of Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefcovič of 2 October 2013 (reference Ares(2013)3191712).
[4] Judgment of 1 July 2008 in Sweden and Turco v Council, C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P, EU:C:2008:374, at 48.
[5] Ibid. at 49.
[6] Ibid. at 69.
[7] Ibid. at 69
[8] https://www.access-info.org/wp-content/u...
[9] http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/resour...
[10] http://www.foeeurope.org/legal_framework...
[11] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/et...
[12] http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/imp...
[13] According to recital 6 of Regulation 1049/2001, “wider access should be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity […] Such documents should be made directly accessible to the greatest possible extent” (emphasis added).
[14] http://www.transparencyinternational.eu/...
[15] http://alter-eu.org/sites/default/files/...
[16] http://alter-eu.org/member-state-offices...
[17] http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/civil_s...
[18] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/E...
[19] http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister...
[20] http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/imp...
[21] The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that the right of access to information is an inherent part of freedom of expression in a series of cases: Case of Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary (App. No. 37374/05), ECHR, 14 April 2009; Case of the Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia; Case of Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung eines wirtschaftlich gesunden land- und forstwirt¬schaftlichen Grundbesitzes v. Austria. This has also been confirmed by the UN Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 34.

Secretariat General of the European Commission

Due to the holiday period in August, some delays may occur in the
treatment of your access-to-documents request, especially where the
processing of data requires the consultation of national administrations,
external organisations or other services.

* *  *

Pendant la période des congés en août, certains retards peuvent se
produire dans le traitement de votre demande d'accès aux documents, en
particulier lorsque le traitement des données exige la consultation des
administrations nationales, d’organisations extérieures ou d’autres
services.

 

*  *  *

Während der Ferienzeit im August könnten Verzögerungen bei der Bearbeitung
Ihres Antrags auf Zugang zu Dokumenten auftreten, insbesondere wenn die
Berarbeitung die Konsultierung der nationalen Verwaltungen, externer
Organisationen oder anderer Dienststellen erforderlich macht.

 

Secretariat General of the European Commission

1 Attachment

Dear Mrs. Darbishire,

 

Thank you for your email dated 18/08/2016, by which you request, pursuant
to Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament,
Council and Commission documents, a review of the position taken by DG
Legal Service in reply to your initial application GESTDEM 2016/2791.

 

We hereby acknowledge receipt of your confirmatory application for access
to documents which was registered on 25/08/2016 (Ares(2016)4773635).

 

Your application will be handled within 15 working days (15/09/2016).   In
case this time limit needs to be extended, you will be informed in due
course.

 

Please be informed that the answer to your confirmatory application is a
formal Commission decision that will be notified to you by express
delivery.  We kindly offer you the possibility to provide us a contact
phone number (by email to [email address]), so that the external
delivery service can contact you in case of absence.

 

Please note that the Commission will not use your phone number for any
other purpose than for informing the delivery service, and that it will
delete it immediately thereafter.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS TEAM
European Commission
Secretariat General

Unit B4 - Transparency

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Darbishire [mailto:[FOI #2959 email]]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:41 PM
To: SG ACCES DOCUMENTS
Subject: Internal review of access to documents request - Legal Advice on
Lobby Register

 

European Commission

Secretary-General

Transparency unit SG-B-4

BERL 5/327

B-1049 Brussels

BELGIUM

 

Madrid, 18 August 2016

 

Subject:  Request for access to documents - confirmatory application

Reference number:   GestDem 2016/2791

 

Dear Secretary General,

 

Following my request for access to documents of 17 May 2016, I am hereby
submitting a confirmatory application in accordance with Article 7(2)[1]
and 7(4)[2] of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents (hereinafter “Regulation
1049/2001” or “the Regulation”).

 

I.                FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 

On 17 May 2016 I requested, via the AsktheEU.org portal, full access to
the legal advice generated by and/or provided to the European Commission
(the “Commission”) regarding the lobby register, including any and all
legal advice that considers the Treaty basis for the register and whether
or not it could be mandatory. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the
application on 19 May 2016.

The request and the full history can be found here:
[1]https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/lega...

 

Despite an obligation to handle my application within 15 working days, on
the date the deadline was meant to expire, 9 June 2016, the Commission
extended the deadline by another 15 working days, without providing
detailed reasons as to why, meaning that the new deadline was to expire on
30 June 2016.

 

On 30 June 2016, the date that the second deadline was supposed to expire,
the Commission informed me that it was still in the process of handling of
my application and that it would send me a reply “as soon as possible,”
without giving any indication of when this would be.

 

Half a month after the missed second deadline, on 18 July 2016, the
Commission informed me that it would be sending its reply “by the end of
this week”. The Commission failed to reply by the end of the week.

 

I finally received a reply, by letter of 27 July 2016, over two months
following the date of the request. In its reply, the Commission granted
partial access to three European Commission Legal Service documents.[3]

The documents received have been heavily redacted, to the extent that,
while they do contain some factual and background information that is
generally already in the public domain, they provide no insight into the
nature, scope, or conclusions of the legal advice provided by the Legal
Services, and hence entirely fail to satisfy the request.

 

II.             PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS

 

Before addressing the Commission’s substantive assessment of my request,
it is worth drawing to the Commission’s attention its handling of my
request, which fell well below the standard set in Regulation 1049/2001,
infringing Articles 7(1) and 7(3).

 

First, Articles 7(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 obliges the institution to
handle applications for access to documents “promptly”. Taking from 19 May
2016, the date the Commission acknowledged receipt of the application, to
27 July 2016, the date of the reply, can in no way be regarded as
‘prompt’.

 

Second, Article 7(3) of the Regulation states that the institution may
only extend the 15 working day deadline to reply in “exceptional cases”,
citing as an example where there is “an application relating to a very
long document or to a very large number of documents”. My application
merely related to three documents, consisting of 2, 5 and 6 pages, rather
than a ‘very long document’ or a ‘very large number of documents’ as is
required by the Regulation to justify extending the deadline. It is
therefore clear that there was no exceptional case justifying extending
the Commission’s deadline.

 

Third, Article 7(3) of the Regulation states that this 15 working day time
limit may be extended provided that “detailed reasons are given”. However,
as reason for the extension, the Commission simply stated in its reply
letter that: “in view of the number and nature of the applications for
access to documents the Legal Service is dealing with currently, we will
not be in a position to complete the processing of your request within the
time limit of 15 working days, which expires today” (emphasis added). In
using such general and imprecise language, it is difficult, under any
possible reading of Article 7(3) to see this explanation by the Commission
as satisfying the requirement that the reasons for the extension be
‘detailed’.

 

Fourth, despite already granting itself a 15 working day extension to
reply—contrary to Articles 7(1) and 7(3), as explained above—the
Commission extended its deadline twice more, completely outside the limits
of its power under Regulation 1049/2001. The third deadline extension,
which it granted itself on 30 June 2016, did not even give an indication
of when it was going send the reply. Then on 18 July 2016, the Commission
said it would reply “by the end of this week”, which it did not.

 

Whilst we realise that, at this juncture, the Commission can do nothing to
reverse the breach of the timeframes that has already occurred, and
recognising that a confirmatory application is not the vehicle for a
further request for documents, we do nevertheless ask that in your
response, you address the question of what the Commission is doing to
solve the problem of serious delays in responding to requests. We further
ask, given (as we argue below) the high public interest in this particular
access to documents request, that you respond to this confirmatory
application within the 15 working days stipulated by Regulation 1049/2001.

 

III.           SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT

 

It should be stated at the outset that, in accordance with recital 11 of
Regulation 1049/2001, the general principle is that “all documents of the
institutions should be accessible to the public.” The burden is therefore
on the institution to prove to the requisite legal standard that full
disclosure of the three documents at issue would undermine the protection
of legal advice (Article 4(2) of the Regulation) and—as regards documents
relating to a matter where the decision has not been taken by the
Commission—would seriously undermine the Commission’s decision-making
process (Article 4(3) of the Regulation).

 

A.              Protection of legal advice and of the decision making
process

 

It has been established by the Court of Justice that the reasons for any
decision based on the exceptions of Article 4 of the Regulation must be
stated by the institution.[4] If an institution decides to deny full
access to a document, it must explain two things:

 

“first, how access to that document could specifically and effectively
undermine the interest protected by an exception laid down in Article 4 of
Regulation No 1049/2001 relied on by that institution and, secondly, in
the situations referred to in Article 4(2) and (3) of that regulation,
whether or not there is an overriding public interest that might
nevertheless justify disclosure of the document concerned” (emphasis
added).[5]

 

It will first be argued that full access to the three documents in
question does not undermine the protection of legal advice or the
institution’s decision making process. In the alternative, if it were to
be regarded that disclosure would undermine the given interest (which I
argue is not the case), there would nevertheless be an overriding public
interest in fully disclosing the documents.

 

i.                 Access to the documents does not specifically and
effectively undermine the protection of legal advice or the institution’s
decision making process

 

-        Article 4(2): Legal advice

 

The Commission does not explain how exactly disclosure of each of the
three documents could specifically and effectively undermine the
protection of legal advice.

 

The Court in the above cited Sweden and Turco v Council (“Turco”) case
condemned the Council for relying on “mere assertions, which were in no
way substantiated by detailed arguments” and stated that “there would
appear to be no real risk that is reasonably foreseeable and not purely
hypothetical of that interest being undermined.”

 

It is wholly apparent that the Commission is, like the Council in Turco,
relying on unsubstantiated assertions, despite the burden being on the
Institution—rather than the person seeking access to the documents—to
demonstrate why it should benefit from an exception to the general rule
that all documents of the institutions should be accessible to the
public.  For example, it is not clear how disclosure of each of the three
documents would ‘prejudice’ the Legal Service’s capacity to assist the
Commission, or how it would ‘deprive’ the College of Commissioners of an
element in the decision-making process.

 

The Commission states that “full disclosure of the documents would make
known to the public an internal legal opinion in a matter of a sensitive
nature, drafted under the responsibility of the Legal Service and intended
exclusively for the Commission’s Cabinet responsible for the matter and
for the Secretariat-General”.

 

We first underline that, as stated in recital 11, cited above, there is a
general presumption that all documents are public, and hence neither the
treaties nor Regulation 1049/2001 permit the concept of “internal”
document and hence do not permit the creation of documents which are prima
facie presumed never to be accessible to the public.

 

Although the Court has stated that refusal to disclose a particularly
sensitive legal opinion, in the context of a legislative process, may be
justified, “in such a case, it is incumbent on the institution concerned
to give a detailed statement of reasons for such a refusal” (emphasis
added). [6] In the Commission’s reply, there is no such ‘detailed’
statement of reasons, firstly, as to why the issue is ‘sensitive’ as
compared to other issues that the institution deals with, or, secondly,
precisely how the disclosure of the opinion would undermine the protection
of legal advice. We note that, while a matter of high importance in terms
of ensuring the integrity of and trust in European Union decision making,
there is nothing about the lobby register that is particularly sensitive
compared with, for example, matters of public security or the fight
against terrorism.

 

Consequently, the Commission has not established that access to each of
the three documents at issue could specifically and effectively undermine
the protection of legal advice.

 

The Commission further argues that some of the information contained in
the legal advice is ‘of a particularly wide scope’. The Court has accepted
that in some instances there may grounds for refusing to disclose a
particular legal opinion “having a particularly wide scope that goes
beyond the context of the legislative process in question.”[7] Once again,
however, the burden is on the institution to give a detailed statement of
reasons for the refusal, which in this case the Commission has failed to
do, and to indicate to which parts of the documents this grounds for the
exception applies. We hereby ask the Commission to confirm whether there
is any legal advice in the requested documents that does not relate to the
lobby register.

 

-        Article 4(3): The institution’s decision making process

 

As above, the Commission does not explain how exactly disclosure of each
of the three documents could specifically and effectively undermine its
decision-making process. The Commission simply states that full disclosure
of each of the three documents would “severely reduce the Commission's
capacity to take a decision after frank and unbiased internal discussion,
free from external interferences, affecting, thus, seriously its
decision-making process.” It is far from clear how disclosure would affect
its capacity to take a decision on this issue as there is a distinction
between the legal advice itself and the Commission’s consideration of that
legal advice.

 

We note that this particular decision-making process is not of the nature
that requires it to be carried out in isolation such as, for example, a
decision on allocating a tender in a public procurement process after the
bids are in. Indeed, this is a decision-making process in which opinions
have already been sought from the wider public through a public
consultation, and there is an ongoing public debate. Such input enriches
the Commissions internal discussions and does not prevent Commission
officials from reaching conclusions as to what is in the public interest
in a professional and independent manner. None of this is related to
public disclosure of the legal advice.

 

Consequently, the Commission has not established that access to each of
the three documents at issue could specifically and effectively undermine
its decision making process.

 

ii.               There is an overriding public interest in disclosure

 

As stated above, this is an alternative argument, in that even if it were
to be regarded that disclosure would undermine the given interest, there
would nevertheless be an overriding public interest in fully disclosing
the documents.

 

The Commission stated in its reply that "the transparency register is
indeed an initiative of public interest". The Commission stated however
that there are "no elements capable of showing the existence of an
overriding public interest in disclosure of the withheld parts of the
documents that would outweigh the public interest in the protection of
legal advice and of the decision-making process."

 

Set out below are the elements that provide evidence of an overriding
public interest in disclosure of the withheld parts of the documents:

 

-        Overriding public interest in a balanced and informed public
debate to facilitate better decision making

 

There is overwhelming public support for a mandatory transparency
register; 80% of EU citizens agree there should be mandatory regulation of
lobbying.[8] The European Ombudsman[9] as well as civil society
organisations, including leading groups such as ALTER EU and Transparency
International, have taken a clear position in favour of a legally-binding
register. Independent legal advice commissioned by ALTER EU concluded that
there is a legal basis for a mandatory register.[10]

 

The European Parliament, the only directly-elected body of the EU
institutions and representative of EU citizens, has also declared since
2008 that it prefers a legally-binding transparency register "on the basis
of Article 352 TFEU".[11] On the other hand, the Commission in its
transparency register roadmap outlined a "choice of IIA instrument" as the
more appropriate option.[12] The path being taken by the Commission
diverges from the view held by many stakeholders and citizens that reform
of the transparency register need be based on Article 352 TFEU. 

 

It should also be noted that the Court stated in Turco that openness
“contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinize
all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act. The
possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning
legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their
democratic rights.”[13] By not sharing its legal assessment of an
initiative of public interest, the European Commission is stymying public
debate on this topic, as the public is prevented from discussing and from
comparing and contrasting the different legal perspectives.

 

There exists an overriding public interest in having the documents made
fully public in order to allow an informed public debate on the reform of
the transparency register.

 

-        Overriding public interest in obtaining the best possible outcome
in transparency register reform

 

The current register system contains various loopholes and deficiencies in
serving the purpose for which it was created: to know what interests are
being represented at EU level, who represents those interests, and with
what budgets.

 

In 2015, Transparency International filed 4,253 official complaints on
inaccurate or implausible entries (around half of the total number of
entries at the time),[14] and ALTER EU has also published studies on
loopholes concerning, for example, a number of law firms who are not
registered in spite of the fact that they also carry out lobbying
activities.[15] There is also a need to expand the scope of the register
regime to include Permanent Representations and the Council in as lobbying
also is directed towards them.[16]

 

The Commission’s recent public consultation on the register sought input
on “what can be improved and how, in order to ensure that the Register
fulfils its full potential.”[17] In order to find the optimal path to take
to improve the register, there is therefore an overriding public interest
in full access to the requested documents in order to understand the
Commission’s pursuit of an Inter-Institutional Agreement despite criticism
that such a path will not lead to a closing of many of the loopholes and
deficiencies in the current system. Such access is also in the public
interest given the European Parliament’s preference for a legally-binding
mechanism. There is an overriding public interest in knowing, for example,
if the Commission may have suppressed one option in favour of another
which would produce a weaker outcome.

 

It is essential that the public be able to access the policy options in
order to ensure that the path taken by the Commission to address the
reform of the transparency register is indeed, optimal.

 

-        Overriding public interest in ensuring accountability of EU
institutions and citizen participation

 

According to Article 15(1) TFEU, “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.”[18]

 

Further, according to recital 2 of Regulation 1049/2001: “Openness enables
citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and
guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more
effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system.
Openness contributes to strengthening the principles of democracy and
respect for fundamental rights as laid down in Article 6 of the EU Treaty
and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.”

 

Indeed, the Transparency Register website states that "The decision-making
process must be transparent to allow for proper scrutiny and to ensure
that the Union’s institutions are accountable."[19]

 

The overriding public interest in full publication of the documents
requested derives from the public’s right to good governance and to hold
public bodies accountable, as guaranteed by the EU Treaties. Without
access to the documents requested, it is impossible for the public to hold
the Commission accountable for pursuing the Inter-Institutional Agreement
outlined in its roadmap as opposed to a legislative proposal.[20]

 

The overriding public interest in full access to the requested documents
is also supported by the public’s right to participate in the
decision-making process, as guaranteed by the EU treaties. Without full
access to the documents, the public is unable to make an informed opinion
on the path taken by the Commission to reform the transparency register
and is hence prevented from exercising its fundamental right to freedom of
expression.[21] Hence, if the public is unable to make an informed opinion
due to the lack of necessary information, it is unable to exercise its
right to participate effectively in the decision making process
(informally or formally such as through public consultations).

 

iii.             Failure to indicate which exception applies to which
parts of which document

 

The Commission has redacted the documents based on the two exceptions
invoked but has failed to indicate whether all the exceptions apply to all
the redacted text of all the documents, or whether there are parts which,
for example, fall under only the decision-making exception and not that
for protection of legal advice.

 

B.              Protection of personal data

 

For the purposes of this request, the expunged personal data does not need
to be transferred to me.

 

IV.           CONCLUSION

 

In light of the arguments above, I hereby request full access to the three
documents with reference numbers JUR(2006)30417, JUR(2007)30478 and
Ares(2013)3191712.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Helen Darbishire

Access Info Europe

 

FOOTNOTES: 

 

[1] “In the event of a total or partial refusal, the applicant may, within
15 working days of receiving the institution's reply, make a confirmatory
application asking the institution to reconsider its position.”

[2] “Failure by the institution to reply within the prescribed time-limit
shall entitle the applicant to make a confirmatory application.”

[3] Note of the Legal Service to the Secretary General of 12 September
2006 (reference JUR(2006)30417);  Note of the Legal Service to the
Secretariat General of 17 September 2007(reference JUR(2007)30478); Note
of the Legal Service to the Head of Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš
Šefcovič of 2 October 2013 (reference Ares(2013)3191712).

[4] Judgment of 1 July 2008 in Sweden and Turco v Council, C-39/05 P and
C-52/05 P, EU:C:2008:374, at 48.

[5] Ibid. at 49.

[6] Ibid. at 69.

[7] Ibid. at 69

[8]
[2]https://www.access-info.org/wp-content/u...

[9]
[3]http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/resour...

[10]
[4]http://www.foeeurope.org/legal_framework...

[11]
[5]http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/et...

[12]
[6]http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/imp...

[13] According to recital 6 of Regulation 1049/2001, “wider access should
be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in
their legislative capacity […] Such documents should be made directly
accessible to the greatest possible extent” (emphasis added).

[14]
[7]http://www.transparencyinternational.eu/...

[15]
[8]http://alter-eu.org/sites/default/files/...

[16]
[9]http://alter-eu.org/member-state-offices...

[17]
[10]http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/civil_s...

[18]
[11]http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/E...

[19]
[12]http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister...

[20]
[13]http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/imp...

[21] The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that the right of
access to information is an inherent part of freedom of expression in a
series of cases: Case of Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary (App. No.
37374/05), ECHR, 14 April 2009; Case of the Youth Initiative for Human
Rights v. Serbia; Case of Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung,
Stärkung und Schaffung eines wirtschaftlich gesunden land- und
forstwirt¬schaftlichen Grundbesitzes v. Austria. This has also been
confirmed by the UN Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 34.

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[14][FOI #2959 email]

 

This message and all replies from Secretariat General will be published on
the AsktheEU.org website. For more information see our dedicated page for
EU public officials at [15]https://www.asktheeu.org/en/help/officers

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/lega...
2. https://www.access-info.org/wp-content/u...
3. http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/resour...
4. http://www.foeeurope.org/legal_framework...
5. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/et...
6. http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/imp...
7. http://www.transparencyinternational.eu/...
8. http://alter-eu.org/sites/default/files/...
9. http://alter-eu.org/member-state-offices...
10. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/civil_s...
11. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/E...
12. http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister...
13. http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/imp...
14. mailto:[FOI #2959 email]
15. https://www.asktheeu.org/en/help/officers

hide quoted sections

Secretariat General of the European Commission

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Darbishire,

 

Please find attached a note for your attention regarding your confirmatory
application GestDem 2016/2791.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS (NL)

[1]cid:image002.jpg@01CFC082.A6D14DD0
European Commission
Secretariat General
B4 – Transparency

 

References

Visible links

Secretariat General of the European Commission

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Darbishire,

 

Please find attached an advance information copy of the confirmatory
decision taken on your request for access to documents registered under
Gestdem number 2016/2791, adopted on 04/10/2016 in the above-mentioned
case.

 

Please note that the Secretariat General of the European Commission will
proceed with the formal notification of the decision in the coming days.

 

This advance copy is solely sent for your information and is not the
formal notification of the confirmatory decision.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Carlos Remis
SG.B.4
Transparence
Berl. 05/315

 

Secretariat General of the European Commission

REMIS NICOLAS Carlos (SG) would like to recall the message, "Confirmatory decision taken on your request for access to documents registered under Gestdem number 2016/2791".

Secretariat General of the European Commission

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Darbishire,

 

Please find attached an advance information copy of the confirmatory
decision taken on your request for access to documents registered under
Gestdem number 2016/2791, adopted on 04/10/2016 in the above-mentioned
case.

 

Please note that the Secretariat General of the European Commission will
proceed with the formal notification of the decision in the coming days.

 

This advance copy is solely sent for your information and is not the
formal notification of the confirmatory decision.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Carlos Remis
SG.B.4
Transparence
Berl. 05/315