EUROPEAN COMMISSION
SECRETARIAT-GENERAL

Directorate C - Transparency, Efficiency & Resources
  SG.C.1 - Transparency, Document Management & Access to Documents
Brussels, 16 December 2019
ACCESS TO NAMES AND FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION STAFF
GUIDANCE NOTE
1. BACKGROUND
Commission  services  receive  a  large  number  of  requests  each  year,  under  Regulation  (EC)  No
1049/2001,  for  access  to  documents  (e.g.  e-mails1,  copies  of  correspondence,  meeting  minutes),
which include the names and functions of Commission staff.
This note sets out the approach to follow in such cases.
It aims to strike a fair balance between the right of access to documents2 and the right to personal
data protection3. It also takes into account the fact that, in most cases, applicants are interested in
the substance of the documents rather than in the personal data appearing therein.
This  approach  consists  of  granting,  in  principle,  access  to  the  names  and  functions4  of
Commissioners  and  their  Cabinet  members  (AD  officials)  and  staff  in  senior  management
positions5, as well as to the Heads of the Commission’s Representations in the Member States of
the EU. This access is exceptionally extended to the names and functions of staff not occupying
any senior management position, if:
  the applicant has substantiated the need for such transmission for a specific purpose in the
public interest6;

1   These are only considered documents to the extent that they are registered or should have been registered
in Ares in accordance with the document management rules.
2   As  defined  in  Article  15(3)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  and
Regulation  (EC)  No  1049/2001  of  30  May  2001  regarding  public  access  to  European  Parliament,
Council and Commission documents.
3   As  defined  in  Article  16(1)  of  the  TFEU  and  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1725  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/EC. The Court of Justice has confirmed that ’there is no reason of
principle to justify excluding activities of a professional [...] nature from the notion of “private life’, see
Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  20  May  2003,  preliminary  rulings  in  proceedings  between
Rechnungshof  and  Österreichischer  Rundfunk,  Joined  Cases  C-465/00,  C-138/01  and  C-139/01,
EU:C:2003:294, paragraph 73.
4   No access should be granted to other personal data, for example, telephone number, office number, e-
mail address part preceding the domain name etc.
5   Secretary-General, Directors-General, Directors. Please  note that the Commission  Spokesperson  forms
part of the senior management.
6   As  specified  in recital 28 of  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, ‘[t]he specific purpose  in the public interest
1

  there  are  no  reasons  to  assume  that  the  legitimate  rights  of  the  individuals  concerned
might be prejudiced; or
  the  institution  considers  the  transmission  proportionate  for  the  specific  purpose  brought
forward  by  the  applicant,  after  having  demonstrably  weighed  the  various  competing
interests.
2. BASIC PRINCIPLE: REFUSAL FOR STAFF NOT OCCUPYING ANY SENIOR MANAGEMENT
POSITION
Both  at  the  initial  and  at  confirmatory  stage,  no  access  should,  in  principle,  be  granted  to  the
names and functions7 of staff which do not form part of senior management, unless a need thereto
is  established,  there  are  no  reasons  to  assume  that  the  legitimate  interests  of  the  individuals
concerned might be prejudiced, and the transfer is proportionate for the purpose put forward by the
applicant, after having demonstrably weighed the various competing interests.
2.1.  How to assess the need for the data transfer
The need to obtain the personal data must be clearly demonstrated by the applicant. It should be
distinguished from a mere interest in obtaining these data8.
For  instance,  some  applicants  request  access  to  the  names  of  members  of  a  tender  or  project
evaluation committee to verify whether there have been any conflicts of interests. However, save
specific circumstances,  this  will rarely  constitute  a  ‘need’  to  obtain the  personal  data concerned,
given that the Financial Regulation already establish the necessary procedural guarantees to avoid
such conflicts of interests.
The necessity of the data transfer must be demonstrated by express and legitimate justifications or
convincing arguments9, and there must be no less invasive measures available, taking into account
the principle of proportionality10.
2.2.  How to assess the absence of any risks to the data subjects’ rights
As regards the possible risks to the legitimate rights of the data subjects concerned, and hence to
the privacy and integrity of these individuals in the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 1049/2001, these can in a limited number of cases be established without a need to consult the
staff members concerned, in particular:
-
for  members  of  tender  or  project  evaluation  committees,  for  whom  there  is  a  real  and
non-hypothetical risk of being the subject of unsolicited contacts by unsuccessful, current
or future tenderers or project promoters;
-
for staff members tasked with investigative functions (e.g. investigative staff working on
antidumping or competition files, auditors, OLAF investigators, etc.);
-
for staff members forming part of an administrative entity which has been the  subject of

could relate to the transparency of Union institutions and bodies.’
7   To the extent that they enable the individual staff members to be identified. If this is not the case, these
functions  are  not  to  be  considered  “personal  data”,  and  access  can  in  principle  be  granted  if  no  other
exceptions of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are applicable.
8   As required by Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.
9   Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  29  June  2010  ,  European  Commission  v  The  Bavarian  Lager  Co.
Ltd, C-28/08 P,  EU:C:2010:378, paragraphs 77-78.
10   Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011, Gert-Jan Dennekamp v European Parliament, T-
82/09, EU:T:2011:688, paragraphs 30-34 and Judgment of the General Court 25 September 2018, Maria
Psara  and  Others  v  European  Parliament,  T‑ 639/15  to  T‑ 666/15  and  T‑ 94/16,  EU:T:2018:602,
paragraph 72.
2

targeted physical or verbal attacks or defamatory actions by outside parties.
In those cases, access should normally be denied.
In principle, it is the responsibility of the controller to establish whether the data subject’s interests
might be prejudiced. If the controller concludes that this is the case, he will then have to weigh the
various competing interests and determine whether it is proportionate to transmit the personal data
to the applicant. In case of doubt and if practically possible, the controller can decide to consult the
data subjects concerned to establish the level of prejudice to their rights.
In  case  of  doubt,  it  is  advisable  to  err  on  the  side  of  caution,  so  as  to  avoid  potentially  adverse
consequences  for  the  data  subject  concerned  of  which  it  has  not  been  possible  to  assess  the
likelihood and magnitude set off against the purpose of the transfer.
2.3.  Practical implications
The  applicant  should  be  invited,  if  he/she  wishes  to  receive  the  names  and/or  functions  of
Commission staff members who do not occupy any senior management position or are Heads of
the Commission Representations in Member States of the EU, to demonstrate the need for having
these personal data transferred.
Unless it is clearly evident, based on the assessment described above, that the conditions of Article
9(1)(b)  of  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1725  are  fulfilled,  services  are  invited  to redact  the  names  and
functions11 appearing in the documents to which (full or partial) access is granted, with reference
to Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 read in conjunction with the above-mentioned
provision of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.
The  detailed  reasoning  should  indicate  that,  based  on  the  information  available,  the  necessity  of
disclosing  the  personal  data  has  not  been  established,  there  are  reasons  to  assume  that  such
disclosure would prejudice the legitimate rights of the persons concerned, and/or the weighing of
the  various  interests  involved  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  transmission  of  the  personal  data
would not be proportionate.
As the possible release of staff names and functions of Commission staff members not occupying
any  senior  management  position  is  conditional  upon  the  prior  proof  of  the  necessity  of  the
transmission  by  the  applicant,  the  number  of  cases  where  a  specific  risk  assessment  has  to  be
made, and hence the resulting administrative burden and  the risk of errors, is expected to remain
limited.

11   To the extent that these enable the individuals concerned to be identified.
3

Document Outline