Copies of day notes held by DG COMP, investigations and imposition of fines for anti-competitieve conduct

La solicitud fue rechazada por Competencia.

Mr. Charilaos. DROSOS

Dear Competition (COMP),

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:

I refer to the following Commission Decisions, all of which fall into the areas of DG COMP’s responsibilities:

1. Commission Decision C(2009) 7601, case COMP/C.39129 — Power Transformers

2. Commission Decision in case COMP/B-1/37.966 — Distrigaz, Official Journal C 009, 15/01/2008 P. 0008 – 0008

3. Commission Decision C(2007) 1697, Case COMP/B/37.766 — Dutch beer market, Official Journal C 122 , 20/05/2008 P. 0001 – 0003

4. Commission Decision C(2007) 4471, Case COMP/D1/37860 — Morgan Stanley/Visa International and Visa Europe, Official Journal C 183 , 05/08/2009 P. 0006 – 0008

5. Commission Decision in case COMP/38.543 — International removal services, Official Journal C 188, 11/08/2009 P. 0016 – 0018

6. Commission Decision C(2008) 824, case COMP/B-1/38.700, ‘rights in favour of Public Power Corporation SA for the extraction of lignite’, Official Journal C 093 , 15/04/2008 P. 0003 – 0003

7. Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final, case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators), Official Journal C 075 , 26/03/2008 P. 0019 – 0024

8. Commission Decision C(2006) 4180, case COMP/F/38.121 — Fittings, Official Journal L 283 , 27/10/2007 P. 0063 – 0068

9. Commission Decision of 19/12/2007, case COMP/34.597 MasterCard

10. Commission Decision C(2007) 5791, case COMP/39.165 — Flat Glass, Official Journal C 127 , 24/05/2008 P. 0009 – 0011

Article 16 of Annex 2 of the Commission Decision of 15/11/2005 C(2005)4416 amending its Rules of Procedure (2005/960/EC, Euratom) ‘RULES GIVING EFFECT TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE’ reads:

“Rules giving effect to Article 16:
Information concerning decisions adopted

Day notes relating to decisions adopted by written procedure and by empowerment procedure shall be produced and circulated by the Secretary-General within 24 hours of their approval.

Day notes relating to decisions adopted by delegation procedure and by subdelegation procedure shall be made available m computerised form. ”

The present application concerns the release of the documents held by DG COMP (not any other Directorate-General) pursuant to the above article 16 of Annex 2 of Commission Decision C(2005)4416 relating to the 10 Commission Decisions listed under (1) to (10) above.

The requested documents may be proper copies of the day notes themselves (or proper copies of duly authenticated copies of the day notes bearing the signature of an official of the Secretariat-General and a serial number), emails from the Secretariat-General duly notifying DG COMP about the completion of the formalities regarding day notes (as provided by the Commission’s Rules of Procedure), an entry in a computer application, a note to file of a telephone conversation and so on.

For the purposes of sound administration and legal certainty about the text of Commission Decisions, it would be rather unexpected if DG COMP does not hold any document about the formalities regarding the day notes corresponding to the above 10 Commission Decisions.

Once more, it is clarified that this application concerns documents held by DG COMP and not documents held by other Directorates-General.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Charilaos. DROSOS

1 Adjuntos

  • Attachment

    Picture Device Independent Bitmap 1.jpg

    1K Download

Dear Mr. Drosos,
 
We refer to your e-mail dated 16/07/2013 sent to DG COMP.  We hereby
acknowledge receipt of your application for access to documents registered
on 17/07/2013 under reference number GESTDEM 2013/3759.
 
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
07/08/2013.  In case this time limit needs to be extended, you will be
informed in due course.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
BLURIOT-PUEBLA Madeleine
Cellule 'Accès aux documents'
 
European Commission
SG/B/5 - Transparence

BERL 05/330
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
+32 2 296 09 97
[1][email address]
 
 
 

mostrar partes citadas

1 Adjuntos

Dear Mr. Drosos,
 
Subject:        Your application for access to documents – Ref GestDem No
3759/2013
Thank you for your e-mail, requesting access to documents under Regulation
No 1049/2001 (1) regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
and Commission documents.
For your information:

 1. the only Commission's decision mentioned in your list, adopted by
written procedure, is the C(2007)4609 (n° 2)
 2. there are no day notes covering  the Commission's decisions adopted by
oral procedure.

 
Your request:
 
     1. Commission Decision C(2009) 7601, case COMP/C.39129 — Power
     Transformers
Adoption by oral procedure on 07/10/2009 – see PV(2009)1889 available at
this address:
[1]http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
 
 
      2. Commission Decision in case COMP/B-1/37.966 — Distrigaz,
     Official Journal C 009, 15/01/2008 P. 0008 – 0008
        C(2007) 4609 – Adoption by written procedure on 11/10/2007   Ref
Day note: SEC(2007)1329/4 here attached
 
        Please be informed that this day note is an electronic version of
the original day note, which has been deposited in the archives of the
Commission.
This copy is extracted from the Commission's electronic archive and fully
reflect the content of the original.
 
 
     3. Commission Decision C(2007) 1697, Case COMP/B/37.766 — Dutch
     beer market, Official Journal C 122 , 20/05/2008 P. 0001 – 0003
Adoption by oral procedure on 18/04/2007 – see PV(2007)1784 available at
this address:
[2]http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
 
 
 
     4. Commission Decision C(2007) 4471, Case COMP/D1/37860 — Morgan
     Stanley/Visa International and Visa Europe, Official Journal C 183
     , 05/08/2009 P. 0006 – 0008
Adoption by oral procedure on 03/10/2007 – see PV(2007)1803 available at
this address:
[3]http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
 
 
     5. Commission Decision in case COMP/38.543 — International removal
     services, Official Journal C 188, 11/08/2009 P. 0016 – 0018
C(2008)926 - Adoption by oral procedure on 11/03/2008 – see PV(2008)1822
available at this address:
[4]http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
 
 
     6. Commission Decision C(2008) 824, case COMP/B-1/38.700, ‘rights
     in favour of Public Power Corporation SA for the extraction of
     lignite’, Official Journal C 093 , 15/04/2008 P. 0003 – 0003
Adoption by oral procedure on 05/03/2008 – see PV(2008)1821 available at
this address:
[5]http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
 
     7. Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final, case COMP/E-1/38.823 —
     Elevators and Escalators), Official Journal C 075 , 26/03/2008 P.
     0019 – 0024
Adoption by oral procedure on 21/02/2007 – see PV(2007)1777 available at
this address:
       
[6]http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
 
 
     8. Commission Decision C(2006) 4180, case COMP/F/38.121 — Fittings,
     Official Journal L 283 , 27/10/2007 P. 0063 – 0068
Adoption by oral procedure on 20/09/2006 – see PV(2006)1758 available at
this address:
       
[7]http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
 
 
     9. Commission Decision of 19/12/2007, case COMP/34.597 MasterCard –
C(2007)6474
         C(2007)6474 -  Adoption by oral procedure on 19/12/2007 – see
PV(2007)1813 available at this address:
       
       
[8]http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
 
 
     10. Commission Decision C(2007) 5791, case COMP/39.165 — Flat
     Glass, Official Journal C 127 , 24/05/2008 P. 0009 – 0011
        Adoption by oral procedure on 28/11/2007 – see PV(2007)1810
available at this address:
       
       
[9]http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
 
 
 
Yours sincerely,
For the Registry Director
Martine DEPREZ
European Commission
Secretariat General/Head of Unit  SG.A.1 (Registry)
Tel. +32 2 29 62236
_______________________________
(1) OJ L 145, 31.05.2001, page 43
 
 
 
 
 

References

Visible links
1. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
2. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
3. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
4. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
5. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
6. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
7. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
8. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...
9. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/...

Mr. Charilaos. DROSOS

Dear Competition (COMP),

This is a confirmatory application pursuant to article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 as regards the day note - Commission document SEC(2007)1329/4 – concerning the Commission Decision of the DG COMP case COMP/B-1/37.966 — Distrigaz – document C(2007) 4609.

Since this email is dispatched to DG COMP, it is to be forwarded to the Secretariat-General.

A. OBSERVATIONS ON THE INITIAL REPLY

This section sets out important observations regarding the initial reply.

A1. The application purposefully requested copies of document held by DG COMP; it reads ‘The present application concerns the release of the documents held by DG COMP (not any other Directorate-General) pursuant to the above article 16 of Annex 2 of Commission Decision C(2005)4416 relating to the 10 Commission Decisions listed under (1) to (10) above”.

A2. It is obvious that the initial reply was handled by the Secretariat-General and not by DG COMP. This appears not to be in line with article 10 of Commission Decision 937/2001, an analysis of which shows that initial replies are to be provided by the respective Directorate-General. It was not a coincidence that the application requested copies of documents held by DG COMP, since any prudent administrative department ought to have ascertained by way of documentary evidence that the Decision C(2007) 4609 was duly adopted. Holding a proper copy of SEC(2007)1329/4 fulfils this basic requirement. Not holding any documentary evidence is arguably an implied infringement of the aforesaid article 16 and definitely illustrates elements of substandard administrative practices.

A3. It is not possible to draw any definite conclusion from the initial answer as to whether DG COMP holds indeed a properly authenticated copy of the day note SEC(2007)1329/4. Therefore, the arguments herein are not to be construed as an implied criticism of DG COMP.

A4. The released document SEC(2007)1329/4 is a transitory document, ‘created’ with the sole purpose to give an impression of fulfilling the requirements of Regulation No 1049/2001. More specifically, the emblems of the EU and the Commission’s do not appear on the top left corner of the first page; neither do the names of the European Commission and the Secretariat-General appear in that corner. The serial authentication number indicating that it is a proper copy of the original day note is missing from the last page.

A5. The released PDF document was created with Word 2010, which did not exist at the time the day note was printed and was subsequently duly signed. This fact alone shows that an electronic version of the day note used for printing prior to its signing was ‘processed’ using Word 2010. It cannot be excluded that the ‘operator’ of Word 2010 did not inadvertently alter a small part of the document. There is no justification for not having released the electronic document (Word 2003?) that was printed for the eventual signing of the day note.

A6. A proper copy of a released day note is SEC(2012) 587/1 which is found at http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/adopt.... It is normal to expect that the Commission services would have released a similar copy of SEC(2007)1329/4.

A7. Day notes are fundamental in ascertaining what exactly is a Commission Decision adopted by the written procedure. In other words, they are essential for legal certainty. The Commission has sophisticated and extensive electronic document management systems. Keeping a scanned copy of day note like SEC(2012) 587/1 takes very little storage space in these systems, typically in the order of a 100-200 KBytes. Furthermore, the aggregate number of the day notes in a year is in the order of a few hundreds. For an Institution spending annually hundreds of millions of Euro in IT infrastructure and applications, it cannot be argued that the Commission services do not hold proper copies of a day note of year 2007.

A8. Even if a scanned copy of a proper copy of the day note SEC(2007)1329/4 is not currently held on-line – which is very hard to ‘swallow’ in view of the above – the Commission holds scanned copies in its electronic archiving systems. There is nothing in Regulation No 1049/2001 to even remotely suggest that archived scanned documents are not documents ‘held by an Institution’.

A9. It must not be forgotten that the Commission holds the original version of the duly signed day note. According to Regulation No 1049/2001, it is obliged to release a paper copy of it to an applicant. That the application was lodged electronically does not give a ‘free hand’ to release electronic documents that are transitory and irregular copies of ‘proper’ documents.

A10. An applicant is legally entitled to consult the document SEC(2007)1329/4 on-the-spot. If for security reasons access to the original is not granted (e.g. concerns of ‘vandalism’), at the very least the Commission services are legally obliged to grant an applicant on-the-spot consultation to a duly authenticated copy of the day note SEC(2007)1329/4. Showing an applicant a print-out of the released document or a screen of Word 2010 will, in my view, border the bizarre. It run against the letter and spirit of Regulation No 1049/2001.

A11. In case of an action before the General Court, an applicant is entitled to request as a measure of the organisation of the procedure that the Court order the Commission to produce a proper copy of SEC(2007)1329/4, The Court itself may on its own motion do likewise. It is inconceivable that the Legal Services will lodge before the Court the released transitory and irregular copy of SEC(2007)1329/4.

A12. The initial reply does not seem to have been assigned an applicant-visible Ares reference number, which is unusual for formal correspondence with an applicant. It is even more so in view of the transitory and irregular nature of the released SEC(2007)1329/4. The entire tone of the initial reply regarding SEC(2007)1329/4 calls into questioning the administrative practices of the Secretariat-General and the soundness of the Commission-wide electronic document management systems, as well as the departmental ones.

B. CONFIRMATORY APPLICATION

A confirmatory application is kindly submitted for the full release of a proper copy of either the day note SEC(2007)1329/4 or a properly authenticated copy thereof.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Charilaos. DROSOS

Dear Competition (COMP),

This to make enquiries with the Secretariat-General about the status of the confirmatory application dispatched over email on 22/8/2013. This message is thus necessary to be forwarded to the Secretariat-General.

Even though 17 working days have run since the dispatch of the confirmatory application, the Secretariat-General has not notified the applicant about the registration.

The application itself concerns a proper copy of a single document (consisting of a few pages) that was drawn up by the Secretariat-General pursuant to an express stipulation of the Commission's Rule of Procedures, and for which no exception of article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 is applicable. Put differently, the Secretariat-General is obliged to release a proper copy of it. Moreover, in my opinion that the applicant was compelled to lodge a unnecessary confirmatory application is an antithesis to the sound administration.

I would be obliged if the Secretariat-General would inform me about the status of registering the confirmatory application.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Charilaos. DROSOS

1 Adjuntos

Dear Mr Drosos,

 

I refer to your message dated September 18 below.

Having carefully read your message, I don't understand what you are
referring to:

Ø  I didn't see any message of you dated 22/08/2013;

Ø  In your message below, I see no reference to the subject of your
confirmatory request (you talk in vague terms of a "single document");

Ø  In the message below your e-mail of 18/09/2013, there is the answer of
the Secretariat general to your request ref. GestDem 2013-3759. This
answer being a positive answer, there is no matter to a confirmatory
application.

Therefore I would be grateful if you could send me more information about
your confirmatory application (the GestDem reference number of the
application and the reference of the refused document that you want to
receive) in order to give the correct follow-up to your application.

Sincerely yours,

 

Paul SIMON
European Commission - Secretariat General
Unit SG.B.5, Transparency

 

mostrar partes citadas

Dear Competition (COMP),

This email concerns the confirmatory application GESTDEM 2013/3759, whose object is a true copy of the document SEC(2007)1329/4.

THE EMAIL IS TO BE FORWARDED TO THE TRANSPARENCY UNIT.

*********

The text below provides the clarifications the Transparency Unit requested via email on 24/9/2013.

The confirmatory application concerns the release of a true copy of day note SEC(2007)1329/4, or alternatively a true copy of a certified copy of SEC(2007)1329/4.

The document the Commission services released on 1/8/2013 as attachment to the email, file 'SEC 2007 1329 4 FR DROSOS.pdf', is NOT a copy of of either the day note or a certified copy of the day note.

By definition, when a copy of a document is compared with the original, they match word-for-word, line-by-line. As explained in the confirmatory application of 22/8/2013, this is not the case for the 'document' expressed by the released PDF file 'SEC 2007 1329 4 FR DROSOS.pdf' and the certified copy of the day note SEC(2007)1329/4. This proves conclusively that the released document is NOT a copy of the requested document.

For the convenience of the Transparency Unit the confirmatory application dated 22/8/2013 is found hereunder. The entire application (initial application, clarifications etc) is also found at http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/copie....

I trust that the object of the confirmatory application is now crystal-clear.

***** CONFIRMATORY APPLICATION OF 22/8/2013 *******

Dear Competition (COMP),

This is a confirmatory application pursuant to article 8 of
Regulation No 1049/2001 as regards the day note - Commission
document SEC(2007)1329/4 – concerning the Commission Decision of
the DG COMP case COMP/B-1/37.966 — Distrigaz – document C(2007)
4609.

Since this email is dispatched to DG COMP, it is to be forwarded to
the Secretariat-General.

A. OBSERVATIONS ON THE INITIAL REPLY

This section sets out important observations regarding the initial
reply.

A1. The application purposefully requested copies of document held
by DG COMP; it reads ‘The present application concerns the release
of the documents held by DG COMP (not any other
Directorate-General) pursuant to the above article 16 of Annex 2 of
Commission Decision C(2005)4416 relating to the 10 Commission
Decisions listed under (1) to (10) above”.

A2. It is obvious that the initial reply was handled by the
Secretariat-General and not by DG COMP. This appears not to be in
line with article 10 of Commission Decision 937/2001, an analysis
of which shows that initial replies are to be provided by the
respective Directorate-General. It was not a coincidence that the
application requested copies of documents held by DG COMP, since
any prudent administrative department ought to have ascertained by
way of documentary evidence that the Decision C(2007) 4609 was duly
adopted. Holding a proper copy of SEC(2007)1329/4 fulfils this
basic requirement. Not holding any documentary evidence is arguably
an implied infringement of the aforesaid article 16 and definitely
illustrates elements of substandard administrative practices.

A3. It is not possible to draw any definite conclusion from the
initial answer as to whether DG COMP holds indeed a properly
authenticated copy of the day note SEC(2007)1329/4. Therefore, the
arguments herein are not to be construed as an implied criticism of
DG COMP.

A4. The released document SEC(2007)1329/4 is a transitory document,
‘created’ with the sole purpose to give an impression of fulfilling
the requirements of Regulation No 1049/2001. More specifically, the
emblems of the EU and the Commission’s do not appear on the top
left corner of the first page; neither do the names of the European
Commission and the Secretariat-General appear in that corner. The
serial authentication number indicating that it is a proper copy of
the original day note is missing from the last page.

A5. The released PDF document was created with Word 2010, which did
not exist at the time the day note was printed and was subsequently
duly signed. This fact alone shows that an electronic version of
the day note used for printing prior to its signing was ‘processed’
using Word 2010. It cannot be excluded that the ‘operator’ of Word
2010 did not inadvertently alter a small part of the document.
There is no justification for not having released the electronic
document (Word 2003?) that was printed for the eventual signing of
the day note.

A6. A proper copy of a released day note is SEC(2012) 587/1 which
is found at
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/adopt....
It is normal to expect that the Commission services would have
released a similar copy of SEC(2007)1329/4.

A7. Day notes are fundamental in ascertaining what exactly is a
Commission Decision adopted by the written procedure. In other
words, they are essential for legal certainty. The Commission has
sophisticated and extensive electronic document management systems.
Keeping a scanned copy of day note like SEC(2012) 587/1 takes very
little storage space in these systems, typically in the order of a
100-200 KBytes. Furthermore, the aggregate number of the day notes
in a year is in the order of a few hundreds. For an Institution
spending annually hundreds of millions of Euro in IT infrastructure
and applications, it cannot be argued that the Commission services
do not hold proper copies of a day note of year 2007.

A8. Even if a scanned copy of a proper copy of the day note
SEC(2007)1329/4 is not currently held on-line – which is very hard
to ‘swallow’ in view of the above – the Commission holds scanned
copies in its electronic archiving systems. There is nothing in
Regulation No 1049/2001 to even remotely suggest that archived
scanned documents are not documents ‘held by an Institution’.

A9. It must not be forgotten that the Commission holds the original
version of the duly signed day note. According to Regulation No
1049/2001, it is obliged to release a paper copy of it to an
applicant. That the application was lodged electronically does not
give a ‘free hand’ to release electronic documents that are
transitory and irregular copies of ‘proper’ documents.

A10. An applicant is legally entitled to consult the document
SEC(2007)1329/4 on-the-spot. If for security reasons access to the
original is not granted (e.g. concerns of ‘vandalism’), at the very
least the Commission services are legally obliged to grant an
applicant on-the-spot consultation to a duly authenticated copy of
the day note SEC(2007)1329/4. Showing an applicant a print-out of
the released document or a screen of Word 2010 will, in my view,
border the bizarre. It run against the letter and spirit of
Regulation No 1049/2001.

A11. In case of an action before the General Court, an applicant is
entitled to request as a measure of the organisation of the
procedure that the Court order the Commission to produce a proper
copy of SEC(2007)1329/4, The Court itself may on its own motion do
likewise. It is inconceivable that the Legal Services will lodge
before the Court the released transitory and irregular copy of
SEC(2007)1329/4.

A12. The initial reply does not seem to have been assigned an
applicant-visible Ares reference number, which is unusual for
formal correspondence with an applicant. It is even more so in view
of the transitory and irregular nature of the released
SEC(2007)1329/4. The entire tone of the initial reply regarding
SEC(2007)1329/4 calls into questioning the administrative practices
of the Secretariat-General and the soundness of the Commission-wide
electronic document management systems, as well as the departmental
ones.

B. CONFIRMATORY APPLICATION

A confirmatory application is kindly submitted for the full release
of a proper copy of either the day note SEC(2007)1329/4 or a
properly authenticated copy thereof.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Charilaos. DROSOS

*** END OF CONFIRMATORY APPLICATION OF 22/8/2013 *****

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Charilaos. DROSOS

1 Adjuntos

Dear Mr Drosos,   

 

Thank you for your e-mail dated 25/09/2013, registered on 11/10/2013.  I
hereby acknowledge receipt of your confirmatory application for access to
documents (ref.: Ares(2013)3232043 – gestdem 2013-3759). 

 

In accordance with Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to
European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, you will receive a
response to your request within 15 working days (04/11/2013).

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Paul SIMON
European Commission - Secretariat General
Unit SG.B.5, Transparency

 

mostrar partes citadas

2 Adjuntos

 
Dear Mr Drosos,

Kindly find the answer to your confirmatory application concerning your
request for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) N° 1049/2001
regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission
documents (Gestdem 2013/3759).
Yours sincerely,
Carlos Remis
SG.B.5.
Transparence.
Berl. 05/329.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

Mr. Charilaos. DROSOS

Dear Competition (COMP),

Please forward this email to the Secretariat-General.

******************

Dear Secretariat-General,

Thank you for notifying me the ‘final’ Decision of the application GESTDEM 2013/3759, http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/682/r..., henceforth ‘the Decision’.

The applicant makes the following observations regarding the Decision:

1. As it is self-evident from the whole correspondence between the applicant and the Commission services (in full public view), DG COMP has never addressed any kind of ‘correspondence’ to the applicant. It is only the Secretariat-General that has exchanged correspondence with the applicant.

2. It is the Secretariat-General, and NOT DG COMP, the administrative department that released the ‘irregular copy’ of SEC(2007) 1329/4 on 1/8/2013, http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/682/r....

3. In the forth paragraph of the second page, the Decision contains the material incorrect statement “DG COMP provided access to the day note SEC(2007) 1329/4 containing this decision”. This is self-evident from (1) & (2) above.

4. The second last paragraph of the Decision “I confirm that the requested document was provided at the initial stage by DG COMP” is also materially incorrect, simply because the document was released on 1/8/2013 under the authority of the Registry Director, Secretariat General/Head of Unit SG.A.1.

5. What the Secretariat-General has released on 1/8/2013 as day note SEC(2007) 1329/4 is in fact a preparatory document. The requested document and the document held by the Commission services is another document, which the Secretariat-General has unlawfully and without a statement of reasons refused to release.

6. The two materially incorrect statements in the Decision call into question the substance of the Decision.

7. It is incomprehensible why on earth the Commission services refuse to ‘properly’ release a day note expressly provided by the Commission’s rules of procedure, and then when it comes to ‘justifying’ their failure to release a copy of the day note SEC(2007) 1329/4, the Commission services adopt a Decision stating materially incorrect facts.

In view of the above having taken place in the administrative procedure under Regulation No 1049/2001, the applicant hereby submits that the Secretariat-General has an obligation to revise the Decision by removing the aforementioned materially incorrect facts, and subsequently notify to the applicant the revised Decision.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Charilaos. DROSOS