We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Patricia González please sign in and let everyone know.
Patricia González

Dear Budget,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am hereby requesting access to the travel expenses of the Director General Gert Jan Koopman, of the Deputy Director General Silvano Presa, and of the Deputy Director General Maria Rosa Aldea Busquets for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018 inclusive.

I am looking for documents that contain, for each of the trips, the following information:
- Place of origin and destination, and the amount spent on travel or transportation;
- Exact dates and duration of the trip;
- Amount spent on accommodation;
- Amount spent on subsistence;
- Other information, such as possible miscellaneous costs.

If the travel was by air taxi and a team of people were travelling, please also provide documents with details on the other travellers (at a minimum, names and job titles).

With respect to personal information contained in any documents that you might have, please note that the only information being sought here is the name of the Directors, something which is already in the public domain. This request does not seek access to any other personal information such as bank account details. Nor am I requesting data such as the office addresses, signatures or telephone numbers of the DG staff members.

I remain at your disposition to answer any questions or clarifications you might have related to this request.

Thank you in advance.

Yours faithfully,

Patricia Gonzalez

Access Info Europe
Calle Cava de San Miguel 8, 4C
28005 Madrid, Spain

ve_budg.access documents (BUDG), Budget

1 Attachment

Link: [1]File-List
Link: [2]Edit-Time-Data
Link: [3]themeData
Link: [4]colorSchemeMapping

[5]Ares(2019)3937147 - GESTDEM 2019/3534 - Acknowledgement of receipt

Sent by ve_budg.access documents (BUDG)
<[email address]>. All responses have to be sent to this
email address.
Envoyé par ve_budg.access documents (BUDG)
<[email address]>. Toutes les réponses doivent être
effectuées à cette adresse électronique.

Dear Ms Gonzáles,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 19/06/2019. We hereby acknowledge receipt
of your application for access to documents, which was registered on
19/06/2019 under reference number GestDem 2019/3534.

 

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
10/07/2019. In case this time limit needs to be extended, you will be
informed in due course.

 

You have lodged your application via the AsktheEU.org website. Please note
that this is a private third-party website which has no link with any
institution of the European Union. Therefore, the European Commission
cannot be held accountable for any technical issues or problems linked to
the use of this system.

 

Please note that the private third party running the AsktheEU.org website
is responsible and accountable for the processing of your personal data
via that website, and not the European Commission. For further information
on your rights, please refer to the third party’s privacy policy.

 

We understand that the third party running that website usually publishes
the content of applicants’ correspondence with the European Commission on
that website. This includes the personal data that you may have
communicated to the European Commission (e.g. your private postal
address).

 

Similarly, the third party publishes on that website any reply that the
Commission will send to the email address of the applicants generated by
the AsktheEU.org website.

 

If you do not wish your correspondence with the European Commission to be
published on the AsktheEU.org website, you can provide us with an
alternative, private e-mail address for further correspondence. In that
case, the European Commission will send all future electronic
correspondence addressed to you only to that private address.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

DG Budget Access to Documents team

[6]cid:image001.gif@01D3232E.EB1C8920
European Commission
Directorate-General for Budget

Unit 03 – Strategic Coordination and Communication

[7][DG BUDG request email]

B-1049 Brussels/Belgium

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01D5277D.5E6DB120
2. file:///tmp/cid:editdata.mso
3. file:///tmp/~~themedata~~
4. file:///tmp/~~colorschememapping~~
5. https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/doc...
7. mailto:[DG BUDG request email]

ve_pmo.2(PMO), Budget

1 Attachment

Please find attached document Ares(2019)4453996 from SCOGNAMIGLIO Giuseppe (PMO) dated 11/07/2019.

Veuillez trouver ci-joint le document Ares(2019)4453996 de SCOGNAMIGLIO Giuseppe (PMO) daté du 11/07/2019.

Patricia González

Dear Budget,

Please kindly pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications, namely the Secretariat General Access to Documents Team

Thank you in advance.
Yours sincerely,

Patricia González

Dear Secretariat General Transparency Unit

This is a confirmatory application sent by Patricia Gonzalez on behalf of Access Info Europe. The Confirmatory application is submitted as set out in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, to challenge the refusal by the DG Budget to provide access to documents which contain information on of access to the travel expenses of the Director General Gert Jan Koopman, of the Deputy Director General Silvano Presa, and of the Deputy Director General Maria Rosa Aldea Busquets for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018 inclusive.

More specifically, I asked for documents that contain, for each of the trips, the following information:

- Place of origin and destination, and the amount spent on travel or transportation;
- Exact dates and duration of the trip;
- Amount spent on accommodation;
- Amount spent on subsistence;
- Other information, such as possible miscellaneous costs.

I also requested that, if the travel was by air taxi and a team of people were travelling, to be provided with documents containing details on the other travellers (at a minimum, names and job titles).

My request was registered by DG Budget with GESTDEM 2019/3534. The refusal decision was received on 11 July 2019.

DG Budget states in the refusal decision that it has identified the Mission Summary Fiches relating to the travel of these three persons but that access to these documents is refused as it is “undoubtedly personal data in the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2018/1725” and that, given the exception for the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual which is laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the request must be examined under the personal data protection regulation and not the access to documents regulation.

With this confirmatory application, Access Info respectfully requests that you re-evaluate this decision, taking into account the following:

1. Audit and control by the European Commission do not substitute transparency

In its response DG Budget notes that “the travel costs of Commission staff are subject to the audit and control procedures established by the EU Treaties.”

Access Info welcomes the confirmation that spending on missions is properly controlled and scrutinised internally by the Commission. The fact that such internal oversight takes place does not, however, in any way remove the need for transparency.

It should not be only in cases of suspected wrongdoing that transparency is needed, as open government has multiple other benefits, delivering an increased understanding of how the European Union works, improved participation, and higher levels of trust.

The fact that there is such oversight, auditing and control, which, it can be presumed, ensures the probity in spending of public funds, should make it easier to release this data as there will be no possible harm to or undermining of the individuals whose names are associated with it.

2. Regulation 1049/2001 applies and the requested information would not undermine the privacy and integrity of the individual

In its refusal DG Budget asserts “[p]ursuant to Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, access to a document has to be refused if its disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data.”

It is indeed the case that, when assessing whether or not to disclose personal data, “the authority concerned must assess whether the disclosure requested might have a specific and actual adverse effect on the interest protected”.[1] However, your allegation that the privacy and integrity of the person would be undermined is a very general conclusion, one which you do not support with any evidence. As we have seen in ClientEarth v. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) this general application of this exception did not hold up:

The “allegation that the disclosure of the information at issue would have been likely to undermine the privacy and integrity of the experts concerned is a consideration of a general nature which is not otherwise supported by any factor which is specific to this case.”[2]

Since DG Budget did not put forward any specific arguments that there is a risk of an actual adverse effect that would undermine the privacy and integrity of the senior Commission officials whose mission expenses we seek, the exception in Article 4(1)(b) cannot be applied in this case.

Given that no other exceptions have been invoked, we hereby urge the Secretariat General to review the refusal decision and to consider that, as no exception applies in this case, the documents can be made available to the public.

3. Regulation 1049/2001 applies and the requested document does not, at least not in its entirety, contain personal data and that at least partial access could have been granted

DG Budget argues that the fact that the mission cost data of a Director General and/or Deputy Director General of the Commission is “information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person”, means that all the documents that fall within the scope of this request come under personal data in the sense of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2018/1725. DG Budget also asserts that, as per the Rechnungshof case “there is no reason of principle to justify excluding activities of a professional […] nature from the notion of private life”.[3]

Now, DG Budget identified that the documents that relate to this request are the mission fiches of its Director General and two Deputy Directors General and seems to conclude that the mere fact that the names of these people are contained in the documents means that the document in their entirety constitute personal data.

The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union has established that the characteristics of documents must be identified in order to extend some exception to a group of documents. In this case, DG Budget applied an exception (Article 4.1.b) of Regulation 1049/2001) without clearly identifying the full characteristics of the documents and whether they contain information that is evidently not personal data.

Access Info asserts that the documents do contain other data apart from personal data and that DG Budget erred in concluding that the requested document(s) contain personal data to the extent that they are protected in their entirety. Specifically, these documents will contain data on mission destinations, mission dates, modes of transport, and of course, data on the costs of travel, accommodation, daily allowances and miscellaneous costs. There may also be other data, such as notes about the processing of the claim by the PMO.

In addition, the data on expenditure is most likely to have been entered into the Mission Processing System (MiPS), which we understand is a requirement for the processing of expenses of Commission staff. In which case, it should have been possible, in response to our request, to provide a document – extracted from the MiPS system in an excel sheet or in another format – either with no personal data included and/or with the personal data (the name and surname of any persons) redacted. We note that we have received excel sheets from other Commission agencies that appear to be extracted from a computer system and that do indeed itemise miscellaneous costs by type.

Notwithstanding, as we argue above and below, that DG Budget should provide us with full access to the documents that fall under the scope of this request, along with the names of these very senior European Commission officials, it is clear that it would have been possible for DG Budget to provide partial access to these documents and that it failed to correctly apply Regulation 1049/2001 in its refusal of any access whatsoever.

4. Presumption of Publication of the Names of Senior Commission Management

Supporting the argument that the privacy and integrity of the individuals to whose mission expenses we are seeking access, is the document entitled “ACCESS TO NAMES AND FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION STAFF GUIDANCE NOTE” with reference Ares(2019)4352523, dated 8 July 2019, that was provided to Access Info as a result of access to documents request GESTDEM 2019/3250.

This same text was made public a second time on 15 July in response to access to documents request GESTDEM 2019/3899, albeit this time with the reference Ares(2019)4553102 (not, we note, Ares(2019)4243507 as stated in your decision letter that accompanied the release of this document). In this instance the requester had sought clarification of the term “public office holder” in the specific context of publication of names of officials.

This Guidance Note states that it was developed with the aim “to strike a fair balance between the right of access to documents and the right to personal data protection” in order to determine whether the names of public officials should be provided or redacted in responses to access to documents requests. The document concludes that the names of Commissioners, their Cabinet Members, and staff in senior positions, namely Secretary-General, Directors-General, Directors, can be provided to the public unless very specific circumstances apply. [4]

For these people (in contrast to other officials), it is not necessary to require that requesters establish, either at the initial and at confirmatory stage, the need for a public interest in transmitting the personal data (the names). In other words, there is no need to apply the tests set out in Regulation 2018/1725.

To arrive at this Guidance Note, the Commission appears to have carried out an examination of proportionality between the public interest of transparency versus the privacy of senior public officials, concluding that the balance weighs more heavily in favour of transparency. It also appears that the Commission has carried an assessment of harm and found that it is so minimal or non-existent that the names of these persons in documents relating to their professional activities may be made public.

Based on this Guidance Note, it therefore seems that DG Budget erred in concluding that its Director General and two Deputy Directors General are not public office holders. It also erred in concluding that their names may not be released in association with the mission fiches.

We therefore urge the Secretariat General to take its own Guidance Note into account when reviewing DG Budget’s refusal decision and to conclude that the names of these officials can be released along with the details of their mission expenses.

5. The Commission has failed to consider the specific public interest put forward in the request, namely the exercise of the right of access to documents

Without prejudice to the arguments set out in Point 3 above, Access Info here sets out why it believes that the Commission failed to properly and fully apply 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.

With respect to Article 5 Regulation 2018/1725, which establishes the principles relating to the lawfulness of processing, Access Info believes that it is clear that both the collection of the data at issue and its potential transfer is lawful in the sense that the data was collected to fulfil various tasks established by law. These include the financial management, control, and auditing of the expenses, and also the proactive publication of the expenses as required by the Code of Conduct with the aim of ensuring transparency and accountability to the European public.[5] Responding to access to documents requests could well be determined to constitute either (a) performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the Union institution or body, or (b) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject.

The Commission then considers Article 9 on Transmissions of personal data to recipients established in the Union other than Union institutions and bodies. In its examination of Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725, the Commission concludes that Access Info did not convincingly assert, or indeed even omit to put forward, arguments to establish the necessity to have the data transmitted for a specific purpose in the public interest.

It is here that Access Info argues a failure to apply Regulation 2018/1725 correctly. It is clear from Paragraph 28 of the Preamble to Regulation 2018/1725 that “The specific purpose in the public interest could relate to the transparency of Union institutions and bodies.” Therefore, a request for access to information, which would result in greater transparency of a Union institution – DG Budget as part of the Commission in this case – is in and of itself a specific purpose in the public interest.

Access Info made requests that clearly stated that they were presented in exercise of “the right of access to documents in the EU treaties.” As such we in no way failed to put forward one of the most relevant arguments possible: the public’s right of access to Union documents and the multiple benefits in the public interest that flow from transparency. The Commission, rather, has failed in its decision to consider this compelling and specific purpose for processing of personal data.

We believe that the new legal framework established by Regulation 2018/1725, means that the Commission should no longer rely heavily on previous case law, such as Volker und Markus Schecke and Eifert and Psara which established that mere invocation of the principle of transparency is not sufficient in and of itself to justify the disclosure of a document.

And even if, with the new legal framework, it might be possible to require requesters seeking some types of documents that contain personal data to demonstrate the specific purpose, we argue that this should not apply with respect to requests relating to the spending of public funds. The treaties, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the decisions of the European Ombudsman clearly point to the principle of maximum possible transparency in the spending of public funds. This includes transparency about details of the use of public funds, which is what the request at issue is about. Hence these provisions establish a prima facie necessity to process and transfer this data.

Hence, when it comes to a request of the nature of the one at issue here, which seeks access to information about the spending of public funds, exercise of the right of access to documents should be considered as a specific purpose in the public interest. There should then be a consideration of the prejudice to legitimate interests. Wherever such prejudices cannot be identified, or where the public interest in transparency outweighs them, then the documents should be disclosed.

6. There is a strong and specific public interest in Access Info receiving the requested document(s).

In the event that would be held not to be sufficient to invoke the principle of transparency and the fundamental right of access to European Union documents in a case such as this, Access Info’s request establishes an even more specific purpose, which we set out here.

Access Info’s pursuance of transparency of travel expenses has the specific goal to ensure that there is public scrutiny of the spending of public funds, that there can be a fully-informed, evidence-based public debate about how such funds are used, and that the public can be confident that public bodies are exercising public power and spending public funds in a responsible and appropriate manner.

Even more specifically, our request is designed to permit us and others, including anti-corruption civil society organisations and investigative journalists, to act as public watchdogs. This is something that Access Info has pursued and achieved over the course of the past five years of work on EU-level travel expenses, in addition to our wider track record during well over 13 years promoting transparency as a tool for defending human rights, fighting corruption, and promoting participation.[6]

Furthermore, when Access Info Europe makes requests such as this one via the AsktheEU.org website, the data becomes available to all members of the European (and indeed the global) public for them to exercise their rights to participation, to engage in public debate, and to hold public bodies accountable.

Such transparency is particularly in the public interest at the present time, in a political context of rising Euroscepticism and with it an ongoing debate about the role and functions of those in the Commission, as well as more broadly about the salaries and expenses payments made by European taxpayers to public officials in Brussels. Basic information such as the spending of public funds, with details on how the funds are used, is essential to ensure an informed and accurate debate about the way in which Brussels functions. Access Info Europe aims with this request to contribute directly and specifically to that public debate, sharing, as we have done in the past, such information in order to broaden and deepen understanding of the use of public funds in Brussels, and hence to provide greater legitimacy to the work of the European Commission.

As a civil society organisation, Access Info Europe plays a watchdog role akin to that of journalists in line with the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence on access to information.[7] We therefore have a legitimate interest in obtaining information about the use of public funds – this request forms part of that line of enquiry – and we warrant similar protection as the press.[8]

The denial of this request would adversely affect our ability to exercise our role as a public watchdog, subsequently breaching not only the right of access to documents (Article 15 of the TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) but also our right to freedom of expression and information in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which is analogous to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights has established, through a series of judgments, that the right of access to information is particularly strong for public watchdogs such as journalists and civil society human rights organisations.

Denying us this information is impeding us in carrying out this important watchdog function, something that the European Court of Human Rights has established is an interference with freedom of expression and information:

“As the applicant was obviously involved in the legitimate gathering of information of public interest with the intention of imparting that information to the public and thereby contributing to the public debate, there has been an interference with its right to freedom of expression”[9]

The Strasbourg Court has stated that public bodies cannot “allow arbitrary restrictions which may become a form of indirect censorship”.[10] Given that the data that we are requesting warrants no special protection, and that there is a public interest to disclosure, in denying us access to this information, the Commission is creating barriers to the exercise of freedom of expression and information. The European Court of Human Rights has made clear that there is a positive obligation to eliminate such obstacles:

“The State’s obligations in matters of freedom of the press include the elimination of barriers to the exercise of press functions where, in issues of public interest, such barriers exist solely because of an information monopoly held by the authorities”. [11]

In conclusion, given that transparency is needed for us to carry out our watchdog activities, to contribute to public debate, and be able to make informed decisions on our elected representatives, there is a strong and specific purpose to transparency of the spending by public officials of public funds.

7. The Commission failed to establish that any data subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced

Once the public interest has been established, DG Budget is obliged to apply the balancing test ensuring that the principle of proportionality is taken into account, to determine whether release of the data would indeed prejudice legitimate interest.

There is nothing in the refusal decision to demonstrate that DG Budget did indeed carry out such balancing. Nor is there any evidence in your decision that you have examined in detail the nature or scale of the harm that would be caused to the person whose private personal data you assert that you are protecting.

The Court of Justice has ruled that the assessment of harm to a protected interest should be done so as to demonstrate how the protected interest would be actually and specifically undermined by release of the documents.

The Court of Justice has also established that, given the need for accountability and transparency of public authorities, there exists some expectation of disclosure of personal data among public officials:

public figures have generally already accepted that some of their personal data will be disclosed to the public, and may even have encouraged or made such disclosure themselves. It is necessary therefore to take that environment into account when assessing the risk of the legitimate interests of public figures being prejudiced in the context of the application of Article 8(b) of Regulation No 45/2001, and in weighing those interests against the necessity of transferring the personal data requested.[12]

The Court has furthermore made a distinction between the “public sphere” of a political or public person and his or her “private sphere”:

in weighing up the interests engaged, the legitimate interests of the MEPs who are members of the additional pension scheme, which fall into the public sphere of those MEPs, must be subject to a lesser degree of protection than that which, following the logic of Regulation No 45/2001, would be enjoyed by the interests falling into their private sphere.[13]

As previously noted, given the Code of Conduct and multiple other transparency initiatives by the Commission (such as publicity of information about meetings between senior officials and interest groups), the Director General and Deputy Director Generals will have a high expectation that their personal data (meaning in this case only their names, no more) will be made public associated with their public activities.

The Court has further made clear that even in the old regime or Regulation 45/2001, and without full balancing being given to the right of access to documents, it is not permissible to operate on a presumption in favour of protection of personal data:

While Regulation No 1049/2001 does indeed provide for an exception to the right of access to documents where disclosure would risk undermining the privacy or the integrity of the individual, thus making Regulation No 45/2001 applicable, that does not have the effect of creating a presumption in favour of the legitimate interests of persons whose personal data are protected by the latter regulation.[14]

8. The Commission failed to apply Article 9(3) of Regulation 2018/1725

Article 9(3) of Regulation 2018/1725 requires that “Union institutions and bodies shall reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the right of access to documents in accordance with Union law.”

This is an important provision which goes somewhat to redressing the balance between the right of access to information and the right to personal data protection. It should be recalled that Regulation 1049/2001 on access to documents was adopted in 2001, some years before the Lisbon treaty came into force, and hence prior to the full recognition of a right of access to European Union documents, as set out in Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 42 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter).

Article 15 of the TFEU establishes a legally binding obligation on the Union bodies to conduct their work as “openly as possible” and be transparent in order to promote “good governance and ensure the participation of civil society”. This Article also establishes that European citizens and residents “shall have a right of access to documents of the Union's institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.”

Regulation 1049/2001, adopted as it was in 2001, defers to privacy and data protection which, at the time, were seen as stronger rights. Since 2001 all the international human rights bodies, including the European Court of Human Rights (from 2009 onwards), the UN Human Rights Committee (in 2011), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (in 2006) as well as an increasing number of constitutions around European and globally, recognise the right of access to information as a fundamental right – not an absolute right, but a fundamental one.

The Commission should therefore have taken Article 9(3) of Regulation 2018/1725 into consideration, including when assessing the legitimacy of processing and the public interest in its consideration of Article 5 and 9(1)(b), as we set out above. We now respectfully urge the Commission to give due consideration to Article 9(3).

In conclusion, Access Info Europe calls on the Commission thoroughly to review the refusal to provide the requested documents, full and adequately taking the above arguments and reasoning into account.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any clarifications on this confirmatory application.

Yours faithfully

Patricia González

[1] Case C 615/13 P. ClientEarth v. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) ECLI:EU:C:2015:489 para 69

[2] Case C 615/13 P. ClientEarth v. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) ECLI:EU:C:2015:489 para 69

[3] Judgment of the Court of 20 May 2003 in joined cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01, preliminary rulings in proceedings between Rechnungshof and Österreichischer Rundfunk, paragraph 73.

[4] This Guidance Note is in line with the type of guidance that can be found at the national level across Europe. For instance, the UK Information Commissioner has established that the seniority of the people involved lends itself to a higher level of accountability and responsibility. “Requests for personal data about public authority employees”

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

[5] It is noted that, while the Code of Conduct refers to publication of an “overview” of the mission expenses, it does not specify what such an overview might contain. There is nothing to prevent the breakdown of miscellaneous costs by type being part of such an overview.

[6] Access Info Europe was established on 2 October 2006 as a human rights organisation, registered as an association with the Ministry of Interior in Spain, with the mission to promote transparency, in particular to defend other human rights, to permit public participation, and to promote accountability, and to support the fight against corruption.

[7] See, inter alia, the case of Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, App. No. 37374/05, ECHR, 14 April 2009

[8] Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia, App. No. 48135/06, ECHR , 25 June 2013, para 20

[9] Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia, App. No. 48135/06, ECHR , 25 June 2013, para 24

[10] Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, App. No. 37374/05, ECHR, 14 April 2009, para 27

[11] Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, App. No. 37374/05, ECHR, 14 April 2009, para 36

[12] Case T-115/13 Dennekamp v European Parliament (Dennekamp II) EU:T:2015:497, para 119

[13] Case T-115/13 Dennekamp v European Parliament (Dennekamp II) EU:T:2015:497, para 124

[14] Case T-115/13 Dennekamp v European Parliament (Dennekamp II) EU:T:2015:497, para 127

Dear Miss González,

You should send your request to the following address of the Secretariat
General Access to Documents:  [correo electrónico] .

Kind regards

PMO-MAIL-02

 

show quoted sections

ve_sg.accessdoc (SG), Budget

1 Attachment

Link: [1]File-List
Link: [2]Edit-Time-Data
Link: [3]themeData
Link: [4]colorSchemeMapping

[5]Ares(2019)5057513 - Your confirmatory application GESTDEM 2019/3534

Sent by ve_sg.accessdoc (SG) <[email address]>. All responses have
to be sent to this email address.
Envoyé par ve_sg.accessdoc (SG) <[email address]>. Toutes les
réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique.

Dear Madam,

Thank you for your email dated 01/08/2019 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 HR
in reply to your initial application GESTDEM 2019/3534.

We hereby acknowledge receipt of your confirmatory application for access
to documents which was registered on 02/08/2019 (Ares(2019)5057316).

Your application will be handled within 15 working days (26/08/2019). 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. Thank you for providing your contact phone number, 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 (GD)

 

[6]cid:image001.png@01D45409.F767C980

European Commission

Secretariat-General

SG C.1

[7][email address]

 

 

From: Rachel Hanna <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:20 PM
To: SG ACCES DOCUMENTS <[email address]>
Cc: 'Alba Martínez' <[email address]>; [email address];
[email address]
Subject: Confirmatory re GESTDEM 2019/3534.

 

Dear Access to Documents Unit of the European Commission Secretariat
General,

 

Please find attached a confirmatory re DG Budget’s refusal decision in
response to request registered as GESTDEM 2019/3534.

 

This is being sent in Word format for your convenience. A copy is being
sent via AsktheEU.org and we would be grateful if you would respond there.

 

The link for this request chain is:
[8]https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/trav...

The unique email address is: [9][FOI #6998 email]

 

Kind regards,

 

Rachel

 

 

Rachel Hanna

Legal Researcher / Campaigner
Access Info Europe

[10]www.access-info.org

@Access_Info

Contact: +34 913 656 558

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01D5491E.BF682E20
2. file:///tmp/cid:editdata.mso
3. file:///tmp/~~themedata~~
4. file:///tmp/~~colorschememapping~~
5. https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/doc...
7. mailto:[email address]
8. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...
9. mailto:[FOI #6998 email]
10. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...

1 Attachment

Dear Patricia Gonzalez,
 
We have noted that in your confirmatory application, presented in a letter
bearing the logo and address of Access Info Europe, you set out the
positions of this organisation. Therefore, we conclude that you have made
this application on behalf of Access Info Europe.
 
Should this not be the case, we kindly ask you to inform us accordingly by
23 August 2019. In absence of a reply, we would consider that your
application is made on behalf of Access Info Europe.
 
Best regards,
 
ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS TEAM
 
European Commission
Secretariat-General
Unit C1 – Transparency, Document Management & Access to Documents
 
[1]HOW WE PROCESS PERSONAL DATA
 
 

References

Visible links
1. https://ec.europa.eu/info/principles-and...

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Patricia González please sign in and let everyone know.