Esta es la versión HTML de un fichero adjunto a una solicitud de acceso a la información 'Correspondence between Jan Figel and churches'.

Ref. Ares(2019)3194793 - 15/05/2019
Ms Josefina Martí 
Juan Bravo 62 
28006 Madrid 
By registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt 
Advance copy by e-mail: 
Subject: Your 
application for access to documents – 
Ref. GestDem No 2019/1477 
Dear Ms Martí, 
I refer to your e-mail dated 18 March 2019 registered on 18 March 2019 under the 
abovementioned reference number in which you make a request for access to documents. 
I also refer to our e-mail of 20 March 2019 by which we informed you of the extension 
of the time limit to handle your request by 15 working days.  
In your request, you ask for access to: 
“1) All the correspondence (including phone calls, emails and files attached, letters) 
between the Special Envoy for the promotion of freedom of religion or belief outside the 
EU, Ján Figeľ, and churches, religious communities or any organizations representing 
churches and religious communities. The information I ask is from May 2016. 
2) A list of all the meetings (from May 2016) and all documents produced and exchanged 
in those meetings between Ján Figeľ and churches, religious communities or any 
organizations representing churches and religious communities.” 
I consider your request to cover documents held up to the date of your application, 
namely 11 March 2019. 
Based on your application I have identified the documents listed in annex. 
Having examined the documents requested under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 
1049/2001 regarding public access to documents, I have come to the conclusion that they 
may be partially disclosed. 
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 

However, exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 apply, and your 
application cannot be granted for document (7.b) (as listed in annex). Its disclosure is 
prevented by exceptions to the right of access pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 
1049/2001. While I have considered whether partial access could be granted to this 
document by providing an expunged version of it, disclosing such expunged remaining 
parts would be meaningless, as lacking any substantive content. As regards document (5) 
listed in Annex part of it are expunged. 
The detailed reasons for the redactions and the refusal are set out below. 
2.1. Protection of the public interest as regards international relations 
Article 4(1)(a), 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 public interest as regards […] international relations […]”. 
As far as the protection of international relations is concerned, EU Courts have 
acknowledged that the institutions enjoy a wide discretion when considering whether 
access to a document may undermine that public interest.1 
Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental right enshrined in the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Following a resolution adopted by the 
European Parliament in February 2016, the function of the Special Envoy for the 
promotion of freedom of religion or belief outside the European Union was created and 
Ján Figeľ was appointed to this role in May 2016. 
The EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief 
approved by EU Member States in 2013 provide the policy framework for the Special 
Envoy’s mandate. The mandate focuses on promoting freedom of thought, conscience, 
religion and belief, and the rights to non-belief, also paying attention to the situation of 
(non-) believers at risk. To carry out his duties, the Special Envoy pays country visits, 
participates in international initiatives and multilateral processes and conducts dialogues 
with governmental and non-governmental actors, including religious organisations, civil 
society, religious actors, and academia.  
Stakeholders often operate in contexts marked by a wide range of violations and are 
themselves at risk. It is essential to the fulfilment of the Special Envoy’s role that his 
interlocutors may exchange information, express their opinions and share views in an 
atmosphere of trust and confidentiality. The sensitivity of the issues dealt with by the 
Special Envoy reinforces the expectations of confidentiality.  
Document (7.b) and the withheld parts of document (5) reflect the position of 
representatives of religious communities on the situation of freedom of religion or belief 
and set out specific concerns on the status of specific religious groups in certain 
geographical areas. Disclosure of this information would render the specific concerns of 
these religious communities public and breach expectations of confidentiality, would 
result in a less effective implementation of the Special Envoy’s mandate, and would 
harm the external relations of the EU in the pursuit of the EU’s policy objectives.  
I therefore conclude that document (7.b) and parts of document (5) have to be withheld 
based on Article 4(1)(a) third indent (protection of international relations) of Regulation 
(EC) No 1049/2001. 
1 Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2007, WWF European Policy Programme v Council
T-264/04, EU:T:2007:114, paragraph 40. 

2.1. Protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual 
Pursuant 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.  
The applicable legislation in this field is 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, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 
45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC2 (‘Regulation 2018/1725’). 
The documents to which you request access contain personal data, in particular names, 
(e-mail) addresses, phone numbers, signatures, political opinions, religious beliefs of 
natural persons. 
Indeed, Article 3(1) of Regulation 2018/1725 provides that personal data “means any 
information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person […]”. The Court of 
Justice of the European Union has specified that any information, which by reason of its 
content, purpose or effect, is linked to a particular person is to be considered as personal 
Please note in this respect that the names, signatures, functions, telephone numbers 
and/or initials pertaining to staff members of an institution are to be considered personal 
In its judgment in Case C-28/08 P (Bavarian Lager)5, the Court of Justice of the 
European Union ruled that when a request is made for access to documents containing 
personal data, the Data Protection Regulation becomes fully applicable.6 
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725, personal data shall only be 
transmitted to recipients established in the Union other than Union institutions and bodies 
if “[t]he recipient establishes that it is necessary to have the data transmitted for a specific 
purpose in the public interest and the controller, where there is any reason to assume that 
the data subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced, establishes that it is 
proportionate to transmit the personal data for that specific purpose after having 
demonstrably weighed the various competing interests”. 
Only if these conditions are fulfilled and the processing constitutes lawful processing in 
accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of Regulation 2018/1725, can the 
transmission of personal data occur. 
2 Official Journal L 205 of 21.11.2018, p. 39. 
3 Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 20 December 2017 in Case C-434/16, Peter 
Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner, request for a preliminary ruling, paragraphs 33-35, 
4 Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 in case T-39/17, Port de Brest v Commission, 
paragraphs 43-44, ECLI:EU:T:2018:560. 
5 Judgment of 29 June 2010 in Case C-28/08 P, European Commission v The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd
EU:C:2010:378, paragraph 59.  
6 Whereas this judgment specifically related to 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, the 
principles set out therein are also applicable under the new data protection regime established by 
Regulation 2018/1725. 

According to Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725, the European Commission has to 
examine the further conditions for a lawful processing of personal data only if the first 
condition is fulfilled, namely if the recipient has established that it is necessary to have 
the data transmitted for a specific purpose in the public interest. It is only in this case that 
the Commission has to examine whether there is a reason to assume that the data 
subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced and, in the affirmative, establish the 
proportionality of the transmission of the personal data for that specific purpose after 
having demonstrably weighed the various competing interests. 
In your request, you do not put forward arguments to establish the necessity to have the 
data transmitted for a specific purpose in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission 
does not have to examine whether there is a reason to assume that the data subject’s 
legitimate interests might be prejudiced. 
Notwithstanding the above, note that there are reasons to assume that the legitimate 
interests of the data subjects concerned would be prejudiced by disclosure of the personal 
data reflected in the documents, as there is a real and non-hypothetical risk that such 
public disclosure would harm their privacy and subject them to unsolicited external 
Consequently, I conclude that, pursuant to Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 
1049/2001, access cannot be granted to the personal data, as the need to obtain access 
thereto for a purpose in the public interest has not been substantiated and there is no 
reason to think that the legitimate interests of the individuals concerned would not be 
prejudiced by disclosure of the personal data concerned. 
As to the signatures, which are biometric data, there is a risk that their disclosure would 
prejudice the legitimate interests of the persons concerned. 
In accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation EC (No) 1049/2001, you are entitled to make 
a confirmatory application requesting the Commission to review this position. 
Such a confirmatory application should be addressed within 15 working days upon 
receipt of this letter to the Secretariat-General of the Commission at the following 
European Commission 
Unit C.1. ‘Transparency, Document Management and Access to Documents’   
BERL 7/076   
Rue de la Loi 200 

B-1049 Brussels 
or by e-mail to: xxxxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx  
Yours faithfully, 

Electronically signed on 14/05/2019 19:29 (UTC+02) in accordance with article 4.2 (Validity of electronic documents) of Commission Decision 2004/563