Travel expenses for Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete

The request was successful.

Dear Secretariat General,

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 Climate Action and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, for the period 15 March 2015 to 15 May 2015 inclusive, as contained in the relevant mission summary fiches.

I request that the information provided in (i.e.: not redacted from) the mission summary fiches be:

a) Information of the nature already released in response to request Gestdem 2015/5430, namely details on both expenditure report and expense statement, including daily allowances, accommodation, misc. costs, meals deductions, holiday deductions, increased amount on exchange rate, amount for mission performer, advance paid, balance due and (again) total mission cost. In addition, for third party expenses, for both expenditure report and expense statement, the travel agency costs, other costs, and the total for third parties.

b) The following fields from the Mission Summary section of the fiche: Purpose, Name, Date from, [date] to, and Place.

This information would be in addition to that previously provided namely the fields Costs (total mission cost), Travel Agency Check ID, Reference, Mission Type, and Budget reference code.

With respect to the information requested in point (b) above, please take into consideration the following when evaluating the request.

i) In order to ascertain how funds were spent and hence to ensure that the European Commission is both transparent and accountable with respect to the spending by public officials of public funds while on public business, it is absolutely essential that details of what the money was spent on be made public.

It is impossible for a member of the public to evaluate whether funds are being spent appropriately on travel, accommodation, meals, and other related costs, without knowing from where and to where someone travelled and for what length of time. (For example, if the travel costs element of a mission amounts to €6000 and it is a business trip to China then this could be reasonable, whereas if it’s a trip to Rome or Istanbul, it’s hard to imagine how travel could cost this much unless part of the journey is taken on the Orient Express.)

To exclude details on to where and for what time period missions were undertaken deprives the European public of essential information necessary to scrutinise the spending of public funds.

ii) With respect to personal information contained in the mission summary fiches, it should first be stressed that the only information being sought here is the name and surname of the Commissioner, something which is clearly already in the public domain. This request does not seek access to any other personal information such as the bank account details of the Commissioner (I note that in the documents obtained under Gestem 2015/5430, it is not apparent that bank account data is included in the fiches, unless it was included in some forms in the PMO comment fields. But be that as it may, this request is not seeking that information). Nor am I requesting data such as the office addresses, signatures or telephone numbers of Commission Staff members.

iii) With respect to the name of the Commissioner this information is absolutely necessary in order to be able to evaluate the way in which public funds are being spent by public officials on public business. The European Commissioners should be standard bearers for the highest standards of probity and this can only be ascertained by having details about the way in which, and on what, they are spending public funds.

Indeed, in times of economic crisis across much of Europe, it is important that evidence be provided that individual commissioners are not acting with undue profligacy, something that is essential in terms of accountability but also, more broadly, in shoring up or even in increasing the wilting levels of public trust in the European institutions.

The right of access to documents as established in the EU treaties has at its heart the goal “to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society”. High levels of transparency on spending are necessary to achieve that goal. Hence, while generally there is an onus on the requester to demonstrate the necessity of transferring data that falls under the scope of Regulation 45/2001, there should be a general presumption of the necessity of transferring data that is essential to ensuring accountability by the public of the spending of public funds.

With respect to the necessity of having the information above transferred to me in my role as Communications Officer of Access Info Europe, we as an organisation are working on a number of projects relating to transparency of public activity, including spending of public funds. In this context and in the context of our involvement in international initiatives such as the Open Government Partnership as well as our work on transparency of lobbying, we have a particular interest in spending by senior public officials and elected representatives. We are conducting research in this area across Europe, and are also working with journalists interested in obtaining such information at the EU and national levels.

iv) In addition to the necessity (as set out in point iii) of transferring data which would provide me with the name of the Commissioner to whom the documents that are the subject of this request relate, there is also no reason to assume that the data subject’s legitimate interests – in particular their privacy and integrity - might be prejudiced.

In the first instance this is because we are talking about senior (top level) public figures about whom much is already known. The travel and meetings of these persons is subject to huge proactive transparency, including through the highly laudable Commission initiative to publish the meetings of each Commissioner, as well as through other documents such as press releases, social media activity (twitter in particular), dissemination of photographs, reports, supporting documents, and so forth. At their destinations, Commissioners meet with a wide range of persons and there is often media coverage (including sometimes press conferences) related to each trip. Hence there is absolutely nothing inherently private about the trips taken by the Commissioners, not where they go, nor when, nor where they stay, nor (in many cases) where they eat or are otherwise provided with refreshments and entertained. In other words, there is no specific and adverse effect that will arise from the publication of this data.

It also cannot be concluded that the publication of the amounts spent on the travel, accommodation, and related mission costs, when associated with the names of the Commissioners, would in some way prejudice their legitimate interests in a specific and adverse manner. In the first instance this is simply because we are talking about the spending of public funds and such information, even when associated with the name of an individual Commissioner, does not reveal anything relating to the private lives of the Commissioners.

Second, even if it were in some way to be concluded that this information might result in some kind of comments about or even criticism of the Commissioners, it should also be taken into consideration that that non-publication of such information could be even more damaging. This situation is analogous to that which arose in the ClientEarth case where the Court concluded that publication of the requested information was likely to be less damaging than non-publication because “[o]n the contrary, such disclosure would, by itself, have made it possible for the suspicions of partiality in question to be dispelled or would have provided to experts who might be concerned with the opportunity to dispute, if necessary by available legal remedies, the merits of those allegations of partiality.” [1]

In a similar vein, while the continuing non-publication of data about the expenses of each Commissioner is likely to result in a climate of suspicion and mistrust in which possibly false allegations could be made, the publication of the information could dispel such rumours and hence contribute to protecting the integrity of the persons concerned.

Hence the two cumulative conditions set out in Regulation 45/2001 are satisfied and provision of the requested information would constitute lawful processing of personal data.

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

Yours faithfully,

Luisa Izuzquiza
Access Info Europe
Calle Cava de San Miguel 8, 4c
28005 Madrid
Spain

[1] Judgement of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2015 in case C-615/13P, ClientEarth v EFSA, (ECLI:EU:C:2015:489), paragraph 69

Secretariat General of the European Commission

1 Attachment

Dear Mrs Izuzquiza,
 
Thank you for your e-mail  dated 25/10/2016.  We hereby acknowledge
receipt of your application for access to documents, which was registered
on 25/10/2016 under GESTDEM 2016/5975 reference
 
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
17/11/2016. 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 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.

 
Yours faithfully,
 
ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS TEAM
European Commission
Secretariat General
Unit B4 – Transparency
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Luisa Izuzquiza [[1]mailto:[FOI #3516 email]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 12:46 PM
To: SG ACCES DOCUMENTS
Subject: access to documents request - Travel expenses for Commissioner
Miguel Arias Cañete
 
Dear Secretariat General,
 
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 Climate Action and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, for the
period 15 March 2015 to 15 May 2015 inclusive, as contained in the
relevant mission summary fiches.
 
I request that the information provided in (i.e.: not redacted from) the
mission summary fiches be:
 
a) Information of the nature already released in response to request
Gestdem 2015/5430, namely details on both expenditure report and expense
statement, including daily allowances, accommodation, misc. costs, meals
deductions, holiday deductions, increased amount on exchange rate, amount
for mission performer, advance paid, balance due and (again) total mission
cost. In addition, for third party expenses, for both expenditure report
and expense statement, the travel agency costs, other costs, and the total
for third parties.
 
b) The following fields from the Mission Summary section of the fiche:
Purpose, Name, Date from, [date] to, and Place.
 
This information would be in addition to that previously provided namely
the fields Costs (total mission cost), Travel Agency Check ID, Reference,
Mission Type, and Budget reference code.
 
With respect to the information requested in point (b) above, please take
into consideration the following when evaluating the request.
 
i) In order to ascertain how funds were spent and hence to ensure that the
European Commission is both transparent and accountable with respect to
the spending by public officials of public funds while on public business,
it is absolutely essential that details of what the money was spent on be
made public.
 
It is impossible for a member of the public to evaluate whether funds are
being spent appropriately on travel, accommodation, meals, and other
related costs, without knowing from where and to where someone travelled
and for what length of time. (For example, if the travel costs element of
a mission amounts to €6000 and it is a business trip to China then this
could be reasonable, whereas if it’s a trip to Rome or Istanbul, it’s hard
to imagine how travel could cost this much unless part of the journey is
taken on the Orient Express.)
 
To exclude details on to where and for what time period missions were
undertaken deprives the European public of essential information necessary
to scrutinise the spending of public funds.
 
ii) With respect to personal information contained in the mission summary
fiches, it should first be stressed that the only information being sought
here is the name and surname of the Commissioner, something which is
clearly already in the public domain. This request does not seek access to
any other personal information such as the bank account details of the
Commissioner (I note that in the documents obtained under Gestem
2015/5430, it is not apparent that bank account data is included in the
fiches, unless it was included in some forms in the PMO comment fields.
But be that as it may, this request is not seeking that information). Nor
am I requesting data such as the office addresses, signatures or telephone
numbers of Commission Staff members.
 
iii) With respect to the name of the Commissioner this information is
absolutely necessary in order to be able to evaluate the way in which
public funds are being spent by public officials on public business. The
European Commissioners should be standard bearers for the highest
standards of probity and this can only be ascertained by having details
about the way in which, and on what, they are spending public funds.
 
Indeed, in times of economic crisis across much of Europe, it is important
that evidence be provided that individual commissioners are not acting
with undue profligacy, something that is essential in terms of
accountability but also, more broadly, in shoring up or even in increasing
the wilting levels of public trust in the European institutions.
 
The right of access to documents as established in the EU treaties has at
its heart the goal “to promote good governance and ensure the
participation of civil society”. High levels of transparency on spending
are necessary to achieve that goal. Hence, while generally there is an
onus on the requester to demonstrate the necessity of transferring data
that falls under the scope of Regulation 45/2001, there should be a
general presumption of the necessity of transferring data that is
essential to ensuring accountability by the public of the spending of
public funds.
 
With respect to the necessity of having the information above transferred
to me in my role as Communications Officer of Access Info Europe, we as an
organisation are working on a number of projects relating to transparency
of public activity, including spending of public funds. In this context
and in the context of our involvement in international initiatives such as
the Open Government Partnership as well as our work on transparency of
lobbying, we have a particular interest in spending by senior public
officials and elected representatives. We are conducting research in this
area across Europe, and are also working with journalists interested in
obtaining such information at the EU and national levels.
 
iv) In addition to the necessity (as set out in point iii) of transferring
data which would provide me with the name of the Commissioner to whom the
documents that are the subject of this request relate, there is also no
reason to assume that the data subject’s legitimate interests – in
particular their privacy and integrity - might be prejudiced.
 
In the first instance this is because we are talking about senior (top
level) public figures about whom much is already known. The travel and
meetings of these persons is subject to huge proactive transparency,
including through the highly laudable Commission initiative to publish the
meetings of each Commissioner, as well as through other documents such as
press releases, social media activity (twitter in particular),
dissemination of photographs, reports, supporting documents, and so forth.
At their destinations, Commissioners meet with a wide range of persons and
there is often media coverage (including sometimes press conferences)
related to each trip. Hence there is absolutely nothing inherently private
about the trips taken by the Commissioners, not where they go, nor when,
nor where they stay, nor (in many cases) where they eat or are otherwise
provided with refreshments and entertained. In other words, there is no
specific and adverse effect that will arise from the publication of this
data.
 
It also cannot be concluded that the publication of the amounts spent on
the travel, accommodation, and related mission costs, when associated with
the names of the Commissioners, would in some way prejudice their
legitimate interests in a specific and adverse manner. In the first
instance this is simply because we are talking about the spending of
public funds and such information, even when associated with the name of
an individual Commissioner, does not reveal anything relating to the
private lives of the Commissioners.
 
Second, even if it were in some way to be concluded that this information
might result in some kind of comments about or even criticism of the
Commissioners, it should also be taken into consideration that that
non-publication of such information could be even more damaging. This
situation is analogous to that which arose in the ClientEarth case where
the Court concluded that publication of the requested information was
likely to be less damaging than non-publication because “[o]n the
contrary, such disclosure would, by itself, have made it possible for the
suspicions of partiality in question to be dispelled or would have
provided to experts who might be concerned with the opportunity to
dispute, if necessary by available legal remedies, the merits of those
allegations of partiality.” [1]
 
In a similar vein, while the continuing non-publication of data about the
expenses of each Commissioner is likely to result in a climate of
suspicion and mistrust in which possibly false allegations could be made,
the publication of the information could dispel such rumours and hence
contribute to protecting the integrity of the persons concerned.
 
Hence the two cumulative conditions set out in Regulation 45/2001 are
satisfied and provision of the requested information would constitute
lawful processing of personal data.
 
I remain at your disposition to answer any questions or clarifications you
might have related to this request.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Luisa Izuzquiza
Access Info Europe
Calle Cava de San Miguel 8, 4c
28005 Madrid
Spain
 
[1] Judgement of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2015 in case C-615/13P,
ClientEarth v EFSA, (ECLI:EU:C:2015:489), paragraph 69
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
[2][FOI #3516 email]
 
If [3][SG request email] is the wrong address for information
requests to Secretariat General, please tell the AsktheEU.org team on
email [4][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 [5]https://www.asktheeu.org/en/help/officers
 
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #3516 email]
2. mailto:[FOI #3516 email]
3. mailto:[SG request email]
4. mailto:[AsktheEU.org contact email]
5. https://www.asktheeu.org/en/help/officers

hide quoted sections

EC ARES NOREPLY, Secretariat General of the European Commission

1 Attachment

Veuillez trouver ci-joint le document Ares(2016)6504313 concernant "Access to documents request - Travel expenses for Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete - GESTDEM 2016/5981- Holding reply" envoyé par M/Mme GAFFEY Veronica le 18/11/2016.

Please find attached document Ares(2016)6504313 regarding "Access to documents request - Travel expenses for Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete - GESTDEM 2016/5981- Holding reply" sent by Mr/Ms GAFFEY Veronica on 18/11/2016.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This e-mail was automatically generated by the European Commission's central mail registration system.
Replies by e-mail must be addressed to the original sender GAFFEY Veronica (mailto:[email address]).
Remarque : Cet e-mail a été généré automatiquement par le système d'enregistrement central du courrier de la Commission européenne.
Toute réponse éventuelle par e-mail doit être adressée à l'expéditeur en personne, à savoir GAFFEY Veronica (mailto:[email address]).

EC ARES NOREPLY, Secretariat General of the European Commission

3 Attachments

Veuillez trouver ci-joint le document Ares(2016)6927352 concernant "MAC - access to documents request - Travel expenses for Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete - GESTDEM 2016/5981" envoyé par Mme GAFFEY Veronica le 13/12/2016.

Please find attached document Ares(2016)6927352 regarding "MAC - access to documents request - Travel expenses for Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete - GESTDEM 2016/5981" sent by Ms GAFFEY Veronica on 13/12/2016.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This e-mail was automatically generated by the European Commission's central mail registration system.
Replies by e-mail must be addressed to the original sender GAFFEY Veronica (mailto:[email address]).
Remarque : Cet e-mail a été généré automatiquement par le système d'enregistrement central du courrier de la Commission européenne.
Toute réponse éventuelle par e-mail doit être adressée à l'expéditeur en personne, à savoir GAFFEY Veronica (mailto:[email address]).