Dear Madam, Sir,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting the report on the investigation into the conduct of former Commissioner Neelie Kroes.

While I acknowledge that the report may contain personal data, I believe there is a need for this personal data to be transferred to the public domain. It is in the public interest to understand the reasoning which led OLAF to conclude that Mrs Kroes did not break the EU's conduct rules. The reports that Mrs Kroes allegedly broke the rules for Commissioners had a considerable impact on the citizens' trust in the institutions. To restore that trust, the public needs to see the report to understand why OLAF came to the conclusion that Mrs Kroes did not break the rules.

Mrs Kroes herself has today proactively published a press release about the result of the report. Her personal integrity will not be harmed by the publication of the report. To the contrary, it would help restore her reputation.

I only require a digital copy and am requesting you refrain from physical postal communication. I am of course available to clarify my request further if needed.

Sincerely
Peter Teffer

Follow the Money
Overtoom 197
1054HT Amsterdam

Dear Madam, Sir,

I would like to file a confirmatory application in regard to your reply to my request regarding the final report on the Neelie Kroes investigation (case OC/2022/0514/A1). My request was registered under reference OCM(2024)0028. (I hereby also confirm receipt of your e-mail with the decision.)

According to the reply I received, key parts of the report were redacted with reference to the exceptions for protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, as well as that for the protection of the decision-making process.

With reference to the former exception, names were redacted from the report. The reply to my initial request calls for a “express and legitimate justification or any convincing argument in order to demonstrate the necessity for those personal data to be transferred”.

I would like to point out that, in the report, the name of a key witness - whose “selective disclosure” has “hampered OLAF’s ability to construct a fully transparent and comprehensive understanding of the events under investigation” - was redacted from the document. The name of said witness is highly relevant to the public understanding of the investigation, as their contribution (or lack thereof) can only be understood in the light of their role in Ms. Kroes’ conduct. Non-disclosure makes it impossible to understand what kind of testimony is missing, thereby “hampering” the investigation in OLAF’s words.

Also, OLAF evidently interviewed several Commission officials in the course of its investigation. At one point, the document refers to a redacted name that is then described as “Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CNECT)”. If the redacted name is indeed Roberto Viola, the redaction is entirely silly and pointless.

In other places, the redactions of names of officials (or ex-officials) makes it hard to understand the level of cooperation from the Commission with the investigation. I consider it crucial to a proper public consideration and scrutiny of the OLAF investigation to learn whether different parties within the Commission cooperated in good faith with the probe.

Also, I want to point out that activities that are performed as part of the official duty of officials should not be considered private in any case. Therefore, their participation in the investigation, likewise, should not be seen as a private matter subject to redactions.

In other parts, the document redacts names as well as the context. In these instances, it is very hard to make a concrete argument for de-redaction. I ask OLAF to consider de-redacting as many names as possible as they contribute to the public understanding of the report, including allowing for independent scrutiny of its findings.

As regards the redactions based on the exception for ongoing decision-making, the reply argued that public insight into OLAF’s investigation working methods and strategy “could jeopardise the effectiveness of future OLAF investigations”. In regard to this argument, I wish to point out that OLAF itself has made substantial information on its investigation procedures available to the public, including in its “Guidelines on Investigation Procedures for OLAF Staff”, dating to 11 October 2021. This seems to suggest that not all of its working methods can be considered to be sensitive to disclosure to the public.

Also, I ask OLAF to consider the consistency of its reply in this case with similar, previously disclosed reports. For instance, I note that the report for an investigation into Frontex, which was made publicly available by a member of the European Parliament (https://groenlinks.nl/sites/groenlinks/f...), does not contain substantial redactions in the equivalent section, “Investigative activities carried out”. Rather, it lists information collection activities, interviews and inspections carried out. I wish to ask why a similar disclosure can’t be made in this case.

Lastly, I would like to argue for an overriding public interest in disclosure. The UberFiles revelations, including those about Neelie Kroes’ relationships to Uber have drawn the attention and elicited responses of the general public, members of the European Parliament, national governments and watchdogs such as OLAF and the European Ombudsman. The latter institution has recently addressed a letter to the European Commission, in which it references OLAF’s investigation into Kroes’ activities and asks the Commission to clarify how it aims to improve its processes to avoid similar impressions of conflict of interest.

In this light, a clearer public understanding of the content of OLAF’s investigation report manifestly contributes to the discussion about post-employment activities of Commissioner’s. Failure to disclose key parts of the report, as outlined above, risks skewing public perception of OLAF’s work and the responsiveness of the European Commission.

Kind regards
Peter Teffer

Dear Madam, Sir,

I can confirm I received OLAF's confirmatory application. Thank you.

All the best
Peter Teffer