Esta es la versión HTML de un fichero adjunto a una solicitud de acceso a la información 'Legal advice on a Belgian request to lift the immunity of OLAF director-general'.


 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
 
 
Brussels, 6.7.2016 
C(2016) 4377 final 
 
Mr James PANICHI 
MLex 
Rue de la Loi 67 
B - 1040 Brussels 
 
Copy by email:
ask+request-2672-
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx  
 
DECISION OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION PURSUANT 
TO ARTICLE 4 OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES TO REGULATION (EC) N° 1049/20011 
Subject: 
Your confirmatory application for access to documents under 
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - GESTDEM 2016/1143 

Dear Mr Panichi, 
I refer to your message of 21 April 2016, registered on the same day in which you submit 
a confirmatory application in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 
1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission 
documents2 ('Regulation 1049/2001').  
1. 
SCOPE OF YOUR REQUEST 
In your initial application of 8 March 2016, dealt with by the Commission's Legal 
Service you requested access to legal advice prepared in April, or June, or July 2015 by 
the European Commission's legal services and/or the legal services head, Luis Romero 
Requena, dealing with a request from Belgian authorities to lift the immunity of OLAF 
Director-General, Giovanni Kessler
.  
  
The Commission has identified the following documents, as falling into the scope of your 
request:  
 
                                                 

Official Journal L 345 of 29.12.2001, p. 94. 
2    Official Journal L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43. 
 
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 

 
1.  Note dated 5 December 2014 from the Legal Service and the Secretariat-General 
to the President and Vice-President Georgieva on the subject 'Demande de levée 
d'immunité présentée par le juge d'instruction'
, composed of the main document 
and  three annexes (annex 3 includes the cover note and the note to the file); 
2.  Legal Service note to the file of 9 September 2015; 
3.  Note dated 9 October 2015 from the Legal Service to the Commission President 
on the subject 'Request for a waiver of immunity'.  
In its reply of 21 April 2016, the Legal Service explained that identification of the above-
mentioned documents was based on a broad interpretation of your initial request, i.e.: 
without taking into consideration the temporal limits indicated therein ([l]egal advice 
prepared in April, or June, or July 2015
).  
In the same letter, the Legal Service refused access to documents (1) – (3), based on the 
exceptions provided for in Article 4(2), second indent (protection of legal advice) and 
Article 4(2), third indent (protection of the purpose of investigations) of Regulation 
1049/2001.  
Through your confirmatory application you request a review of this position.      
2. 
ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER REGULATION 1049/2001 
When assessing a confirmatory application for access to documents submitted pursuant 
to Regulation 1049/2001, the Secretariat-General conducts a fresh review of the reply 
given by the Directorate-General concerned at the initial stage.  
Following this review, I regret to inform you that I have to confirm the initial decision of 
the Legal Service to refuse access to the documents requested, on the basis of the 
exceptions in the second and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, 
concerning, respectively, the protection of legal advice and the protection of the purpose 
of investigations. The reasons are set out below. 
2.1    Protection of the purpose of investigations  
Article 4(2), third indent of Regulation 1049/2001 provides that [t]he institutions shall 
refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of: 
[…] 
the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits. 
In your confirmatory application you do not question the applicability of the above-
mentioned exception to the requested documents (instead, the argumentation seems to be 
focused solely on the issue of the overriding public interest, which will be addressed in 
point 4 of this decision). Following my analysis, I share the justification and reasoning 
provided by the LS in its initial reply of 21 April 2016.  


 
Documents (1) – (3)  have been prepared by the Legal Service in connection with the 
investigation of a complaint lodged with the Belgian judicial authorities within a pending 
criminal procedure. In its course, the Belgian Federal Prosecutor has requested the 
Commission to waive the immunity of OLAF's Director-General. In consequence, the 
Commission has taken the decision to partially waive the immunity of OLAF's Director-
General in order to allow the Belgian authorities to continue their investigation. That 
investigation, as mentioned by the Legal Service in its initial reply, is fully ongoing and 
therefore is subject to the obligation of strict confidentiality under the applicable 
provisions of national criminal law ('secret de l’instruction').  
In the light of the above, public disclosure of the documents requested would undermine 
the confidentiality of the ongoing judicial investigation and affect the legitimate rights 
and the presumption of innocence of the person concerned. Consequently, there is an 
actual and non-hypothetical risk that the interest protected by the exception provided for 
in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 would be undermined through 
public release of the documents in question.   
Given that the investigation activities in question are still open and ongoing, the legal and 
factual circumstances relating to the documents requested did not change and 
consequently, the justification provided by the Legal Service in the initial reply of 21 
April 2016 is still valid and applicable.  
I conclude, therefore, that access to documents (1) – (3) must be denied on the basis of 
the exception laid down in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001. 
2.2    Protection of the legal advice and court proceedings  
Article 4(2), second indent of Regulation 1049/2001 provides that [t]he institutions shall 
refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of: 
[…] 
court proceedings and legal advice 
In your confirmatory application you do not question the applicability of this exception 
to the requested documents (1) – (3) (the argumentation seems rather to be focused on the 
issue of the overriding public interest, which I will address in point 4 of this decision). I 
would like therefore to confirm the justification and reasoning provided by the Legal 
Service in its initial reply of 21 April 2016.  
Public disclosure of documents (1) – (3)3 would indeed undermine the protection of legal 
advice, as provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, 
which, as recognised by the case-law, must be construed as aiming to protect the 
Institution's interest in seeking legal advice and receiving frank, objective and 
comprehensive advice4.  
                                                 
3   With the exception of annexes n° 1 and n° 2 to document (1) which are annexes to legal advice (and 
thus part of it) but not themselves legal advice.  
4   Judgment of the Court (Grand chamber) of 1 July 2008 in joined cases C-39/05Ρ and C-52/05Ρ, 
Kingdom of Sweden and Maurizio Turco v Council of the European Union, (ECLI:EU:C:2008:374), 
paragraph 42. 


 
In the case at hand, public release of the documents requested would reveal internal 
opinions in a matter of a highly sensitive nature drafted under the responsibility of the 
Legal Service and the Secretary-General (document (1)) and/or intended exclusively for 
the President and the Members of the Commission (documents (1) and (3)) and/or for 
internal discussion within the Legal Service (document 2). In addition, the contents of 
document (1) is not only of a particularly sensitive nature but have also a particularly 
wide scope that goes beyond the context of the specific file at hand. 
Disclosure of documents (1) – (3) would clearly have a serious impact both on the Legal 
Service's capacity to assist the Commission in this highly sensitive matter and on the 
Commission's interest in seeking and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive legal 
advice, thus depriving the College of an essential element in the process of performing its 
tasks.  
In addition, judicial proceedings concerning the Commission decision to (partially) waive 
the immunity have been commenced by Mr Kessler (Case T-251/16, Director General of 
OLAF v Commission
). Therefore, disclosure of the requested documents, which are 
inextricably linked to the subject-matter of that pending case, could seriously undermine 
the Commission's position in that litigation, breaking the fundamental principle of 
equality of arms. 
In the light of the above and given that the legal and factual circumstances5 relating to the 
potential release of documents (1) – (3) did not change, the justification provided by the 
Legal Service in the initial reply of 21 April 2016 is still valid and applicable. 
In the light of the above, access to the documents requested6, must be denied on the basis 
of the exception laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001. 
3. 
PARTIAL ACCESS 
I have also examined the possibility of granting partial access to documents requested in 
accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. However, partial access 
is not possible, as document (2) is fully covered by the exceptions provided for in the 
second and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.  
4. 
NO OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSURE 
The exceptions laid down in Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 must be waived if 
there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. Such an interest must, firstly, be 
public and, secondly, outweigh the harm caused by disclosure. 
                                                 
5   Other than opening of the case T-251/16 mentioned above. 
6   With the exception of annexes n° 1 and n° 2 to document (1) which are annexes to legal advice (and 
thus part of it) but not themselves legal advice.  


 
In your confirmatory application you argue that the right for the public to know such an 
important decision was made and to discount any suggestion that the decision was a 
political one without a legal foundation requires that these 
[three] documents be released 
immediately. 

Whilst I understand that there can be a public interest in obtaining access to the 
documents in question, I consider in this case that any possible public interest in 
transparency cannot outweigh the public interest in protecting the purpose of 
investigations, court proceedings and legal advice falling under the exceptions provided 
for in the second and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.  
 
The fact that the documents relate to an administrative procedure rather than a legislative 
act, for which the Court of Justice has acknowledged the existence of wider openness7, 
provides further support to this conclusion. 
With regard to your argument concerning the transparency of the process, I would like to 
refer to the judgment in the Strack case8, where the Court of Justice ruled that in order to 
establish the existence of an overriding public interest in transparency, it is not sufficient 
to merely rely on that principle and its importance but that an applicant has to show why 
in the specific situation the principle of transparency is in some sense especially pressing 
and capable, therefore, of prevailing over the reasons justifying non-disclosure9.  
In consequence, I consider that, in this case, there is no overriding public interest that 
would outweigh the interest in safeguarding the purpose of investigation and court 
proceedings and legal advice protected by the second and third indents of Article 4(2) of 
Regulation 1049/2001. 
                                                 
7   Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 in case C-139/07P, Commission v 
Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau Gmbh, (ECLI:EU:C:2010:376), paragraphs 53-55 and 60. 
8   Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014 in case C-127/13 P, Strack v Commission
(ECLI:EU:C:2014:2250), paragraph 128. 
9   Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014 in case C-127/13 P, Strack v Commission
(ECLI:EU:C:2014:2250), paragraph 129. 



 
5. 
MEANS OF REDRESS 
I would like to draw your attention to the means of redress that are available against this 
decision, that is, judicial proceedings and complaints to the Ombudsman under the 
conditions specified respectively in Articles 263 and 228 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union. 
 
Yours sincerely, 
 
 
 
 
 

 
For the Commission 
Alexander ITALIANER 
Secretary-General
 


Document Outline