Esta es la versión HTML de un fichero adjunto a una solicitud de acceso a la información 'Industry lobbying on EU packaging and packaging waste law'.


 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Secretariat-General 
 
 
  The Secretary-General 
Brussels, 28.4.20017 
C(2017) 2996 final 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Olivier Hoedeman 
        
Corporate 
Europe 
Observatory 
 
 
        
Rue 
d'Edimbourg 
26 
        
1050 
Bruxelles 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
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 2017/651 

Dear Mr Hoedeman, 
I refer to your e-mail of 24 March 2017, 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, you requested access to:  
-  minutes and other reports of meetings between the European Commission's DG 
GROW and representatives of Pack2Go Europe and/or International Paper and/or 
Serving Europe and/or Eamonn Bates Europe Public Affairs, in which the 
Commission proposal for a Directive amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging 
and packaging waste was discussed (between November 2014 and today);  

                                                 

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 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/ 
E-mail: xxxxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx  
 

-  all correspondence (including emails) between the European Commission's DG 
GROW and representatives of Pack2Go Europe and/or International Paper and/or 
Serving Europe and/or Eamonn Bates Europe Public Affairs, in which the 
Commission proposal for a Directive amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging 
and packaging waste was discussed (between November 2014 and today). 

 
In its initial reply of 22 March 2017, the Directorate-General for Internal Market, 
Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW) identified three position papers, 
signed by Pack2Go Europe, as falling under the scope of your request. These position 
papers, which are also accessible on-line, were provided to you in full. DG GROW 
further provided you with the following redacted emails and pointed out that the parts 
redacted either constituted text unrelated to your request or personal data:   
 
(1) Email from Europen Packaging sent to the Commission on 10 March 2015, 
ARES (2017) 1875968; 
(2) Email from Europen Packaging sent to the Commission on 11 March 2015, 
ARES (2017) 1875860; 
(3) Email from Europen Packaging sent to the Commission on 21 September 2015, 
ARES (2017) 1875860; 
(4) Email from Europen Packaging sent to the Commission on 18 September 2015, 
ARES (2017) 2126573, which was forwarded internally within DG GROW on 20 
September 2015 for information. 
 
Through your confirmatory application you request a review of this position and ask for 
the full, original version of these documents, without text having been expunged. In view 
of the above, I understand that you contest the redactions by DG GROW of both (i) those 
parts in the above-mentioned emails, which were found not relevant for your request, and 
(ii) the personal data contained therein.  
 
I will consequently review these two aspects of your request below. 
 
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 or service concerned at the initial stage. 
As regards the redaction of the parts unrelated to your request: 
I recall that in your request for access to documents, sent to the Commission on 6 
February 2017, you asked for all correspondence (including emails) between the 
Commission and four organisation/trade associations/companies, namely:  
(i)  Pack2Go Europe;  
(ii) International Paper;  
(iii) Serving Europe and  


(iv)  Eamonn Bates Europe Public Affairs. 
 
You further specified that the correspondence should concern the Commission's proposal 
for a Directive amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste and be 
within a period as from November 2014 until present.  
The three position papers that were identified by DG GROW and disclosed to you fully 
at the initial stage represent the position of Packaging Value Chain Industries on the 
proposed revision of Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive. These papers were 
drafted after November 2014 and signed by a number of organisations, including by 
Pack2Go Europe – an organisation specifically mentioned in your request and listed 
above under point (i). 
The four emails identified by DG GROW are the emails by which the said position 
papers were transmitted to the Commission. These cover emails, however, were not sent 
to the Commission by Pack2Go Europe or any of the other three organisations listed by 
you as falling within the scope of your request. The originator/author of the emails is a 
representative of another organisation, namely EUROPEN. Correspondence with the 
latter, however, was not covered by your request. Indeed, the parts redacted by DG 
GROW in the said emails concern the position of EUROPEN regarding the Packaging 
and Packaging Waste Directive.  
Given that you put forward an exhaustive list of organisations in your request and 
EUROPEN was not one of them, I consider that the relevant parts redacted from the 
above-mentioned emails (other than personal data) that represent the views of 
EUROPEN do indeed fall outside the scope of your initial request for access of 6 
February 2017. I confirm therefore the position of DG GROW in this regard. 
I note, however, that in your confirmatory request you argue that your request covers 
correspondence in which the Commission's proposal for the Packaging and Packaging 
Waste Directive
 was discussed. It is beyond doubt that such formulation goes beyond the 
clear wording and the scope of your initial request as formulated in your email of 6 
February 2016. Therefore and in light of the wider definition of your request at the 
confirmatory level, I consider that any new elements - such as new organisation(s) 
covered by your request and possibly a new temporal scope of the request - cannot be 
subject to a confirmatory review at present, as they have not yet been handled by the 
Commission at the initial level.  
Should you wish to pursue this matter further, you could submit a new initial request for 
access to the Commission on the basis of Article 6(1) of Regulation 1049/2001. This new 
request will be dealt with by the Commission service in charge of the underlying subject 
matter.  
As regards the redaction of personal data: 
Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides that [t]he institutions shall refuse 
access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of 
[…] privacy 
and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community 
legislation regarding the protection of personal data



As DG GROW explained in its initial reply, parts of the redactions in the emails 
requested contain personal data. Indeed, personal names (with the exception of the 
Commission senior management), email addresses and direct telephone lines of either 
Commission staff members or third parties were redacted from the correspondence.  
These data undoubtedly constitute personal data within the meaning of Article 2(a) of 
Regulation 45/20013, which defines personal data as any information relating to an 
identified or identifiable natural person 
[…]; an identifiable person is one who can be 
identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or 
to one or more factors specific to his or her physical, physiological, mental, economic, 
cultural or social identity

In consequence, the public disclosure of these data in the requested documents would 
constitute processing (transfer) of personal data within the meaning of Article 8(b) of 
Regulation 45/2001.  
In accordance with the Bavarian Lager ruling4, when a request is made for access to 
documents containing personal data, Regulation 45/2001 becomes fully applicable. 
According to Article 8(b) of that Regulation, personal data shall only be transferred to 
recipients if the recipient establishes the necessity of having the data transferred and if 
there is no reason to assume that the data subject's legitimate interests might be 
prejudiced. Those two conditions are cumulative.5 Only if both conditions are fulfilled 
and the processing is lawful in accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of  
Regulation 45/2001, can the processing (transfer) of personal data occur.  
I would also like to bring to your attention the recent judgment in the ClientEarth case, 
where the Court of Justice ruled that whoever requests such a transfer must first establish 
that it is necessary. If it is demonstrated to be necessary, it is then for the institution 
concerned to determine that there is no reason to assume that that transfer might 
prejudice the legitimate interests of the data subject. If there is no such reason, the 
transfer requested must be made, whereas, if there is such a reason, the institution 
concerned must weigh the various competing interests in order to decide on the request 
for access
.6  
I refer also to the Strack case, where the Court of Justice ruled that the Institution does 
not have to examine by itself the existence of a need for transferring personal data7.  
In this regard, I would like to stress that neither in your initial, nor in your confirmatory 
application, have you established the necessity of disclosing any of the above-mentioned 
personal data. 
Therefore, I have to conclude that the transfer of personal data through the wider 
disclosure of the requested documents cannot be considered as fulfilling the requirement 
of lawfulness provided for in Article 5 of Regulation 45/2001.  
                                                 
3   Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on 
the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community 
institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data. 

Judgment in Commission v Bavarian Lager, case C-28/08 P, EU:C:2010:378. 
5   Ibid., paragraphs 77 to 78. 



Consequently, the use of the exception under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 is 
justified, as there is no need to publicly disclose the personal data included therein and it 
cannot be assumed that the legitimate rights of the data subjects concerned would not be 
prejudiced by such disclosure.  
The fact that, the exception of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 is an absolute 
exception which does not require the institution to balance the exception defined therein 
against a possible public interest in disclosure, only reinforces this conclusion. 
3.  PARTIAL ACCESS 
In accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, I have considered the 
possibility of granting further partial access to the emails requested. However, as the 
withheld parts falling within the scope of your request concern personal data only, no 
meaningful further partial access is possible without undermining the interests described 
above. 
4.  MEANS OF REDRESS 
Finally, 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 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
6   Judgment in ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA, case C-615/13 P, EU:C:2015:489paragraph 47. 
7      Judgment in Strack v Commission, case C-127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, paragraph 106. 


Document Outline