Ceci est une version HTML d'une pièce jointe de la demande d'accès à l'information 'Participants to 2 meetings of the working group on food contact materials of the toxicolgical safety section of the standing committee on plants, animals, food and feed'.


 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
 
 
Brussels, 19.12.2017 
C(2017) 9023 final 
 
 
Ms Natacha CINGOTTI 
Health and Environment Alliance 
(HEAL) 
Boulevard Charlemagne 28 
B-1000 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 2017/5936 

Dear Ms Cingotti, 
I refer to your letter of 8 November 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 of 13 October 2017, addressed to the Directorate-General for 
Health and Food Safety ('DG SANTE'), you requested access to documents containing 
the lists of participants to the meetings of the Working Group on Food Contact Materials 
of the Toxicological Safety section of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food 
and Feed, which took place on 30-31 January 2017 and on 4-5 May 2017, respectively. 
                                                 
1  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  
 

The Commission has identified the following documents as falling under the scope of 
your request: 
(1) 
Attendance list to Working group meeting on food contact materials, Directorate-
General for Health and Food Safety, 30-31 January 2017 ('Document 1'); and 
(2) 
Attendance list to Working group meeting on food contact materials, Directorate-
General for Health and Food Safety, 4-5 May 2017 ('Document 2'). 
These documents were drafted as part of the meetings of the Working Group on Food 
Contact Materials of the Toxicological Safety section of the Standing Committee on 
Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, which took place on 30-31 January 2017 and on 4-
5 May 2017, respectively. 
In its initial reply of 20 October 2017, DG SANTE granted access to these documents, 
subject only to redactions of personal data, pursuant to the exception of Article 4(1)(b) 
(protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual) of Regulation 1049/2001.  
 
Through your confirmatory application you request a review of this position. You 
underpin your request with detailed arguments, which I will address in the corresponding 
sections 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 concerned at the initial stage. 
Following this review, I am pleased to inform you that further access is provided to 
document 2, namely to the information which, at the initial stage, was erroneously 
redacted as personal data (i.e. information relating to the administrations/institutions the 
participants represented at the meeting). As regards the (remaining) redacted parts in 
documents 1 and 2, I regret to inform you that I have to confirm the initial decision of 
DG SANTE to refuse full access to those documents, based on the exception of 
Article 
4(1)(b) (protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual) of 
Regulation 1049/2001, for the reasons set out below. 
Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides that access to documents is refused 
where disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and integrity of the 
individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the 
protection of personal data. 

In its judgment in the Bavarian Lager case, the Court of Justice ruled that when a request 
is made for access to documents containing personal data, Regulation 45/20013 becomes 
fully applicable4. 
                                                 
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 


The Court stated that Article 4(1)(b) requires that any undermining of privacy and the 
integrity of the individual must always be examined and assessed in conformity with the 
legislation of the Union concerning the protection of personal data, and in particular 
with Regulation No 45/20015. 

Article 2(a) of Regulation 45/2001 provides that 'personal data' shall mean any 
information relating to an identified or identifiable person.
 
The requested documents contain names, contact details and signatures of Commission, 
European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’) and Member States staff not forming part of 
senior management. This information, from which the identity of the individuals can be 
deduced, clearly constitutes personal data in the sense of Article 2(a) of 
Regulation 45/2001. Its public disclosure would therefore constitute processing (transfer) 
of personal data within the meaning of Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001. 
Pursuant to Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, the Commission can only transmit 
personal data to a recipient subject to Directive 95/46/EC 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.6 Only if both conditions are fulfilled and the processing 
constitutes lawful processing in accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of 
Regulation 45/2001, can the processing (transfer) of personal data occur. 
In the ClientEarth  case, the Court of Justice ruled that the institution does not have to 
examine  ex officio the existence of a need for transferring personal data. In the same 
ruling, the Court stated that if the applicant has not established a need to obtain the 
personal data requested, the institution does not have to examine the absence of prejudice 
to the person's legitimate interests7. 
In that context, 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 access8. 
                                                                                                                                                 
bodies and on the free movement of such data (Official Journal L 8 of 12.1.2001, p. 1) – hereinafter 
referred to as ‘Regulation 45/2001’. 
4 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 June 2010, European Commission v The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd
Case C-28/08P, EU:C:2010:378, paragraph 59. 
5  Ibidem. 
6  Ibidem, paragraphs 77-78. 
7 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2015, ClientEarth v EFSA, C-615/13P, EU:C:2015:489, 
paragraphs 47-48. 
8 Judgments in Bavarian Lager, EU:C:2010:378, paragraphs 77-78; Strack, C-127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, 
paragraphs 107 -108; and also Schecke and Eifert, C-92/09 and C-93/09, EU:C:2010:662, paragraph 85. 


In the Bavarian Lager ruling, the Court of Justice stated that the necessity of transfer 
must be demonstrated by express and legitimate justifications or convincing arguments9. 
In your confirmatory application, you indicate that [t]he objective of the initial 
application is to understand 
[…] how DG Santé manages the main consultation process 
on the important topic of health and safety in relation to food contact materials. 
[…] The 
meetings of this working group are attended by national and EU officials acting in their 
professional duties of civil servants. 
[…]  Therefore it is hard to understand why the 
identity of the working group members should be kept confidential. 

In this context, the Court of Justice has confirmed in its Rechnungshof ruling10, that there 
is no reason of principle to justify excluding activities of a professional […] nature from 
the notion of private life. 

I note that, whereas the individuals participating in the working group indeed act in their 
professional capacity, they do not represent their personal viewpoints, but the viewpoints 
of their respective institutions and bodies. 
Therefore, the disclosure of the participants' identity would not add to the knowledge 
about working methods or decision-making processes of the respective working group as 
these participants act on behalf of their respective institutions and bodies. 
Furthermore, summaries of the working group's meetings are publically available on the 
Commission's website11, including a list of participating institutions and bodies, and the 
viewpoints they expressed in the meetings. DG SANTE has also provided you with a list 
of relevant national contact details. 
In light of this, wide transparency has already been given to the respective consultation 
process managed by DG SANTE. 
According to the Dennekamp judgment, if the condition of necessity laid down by 
Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, which is to be interpreted strictly, is to be fulfilled, it 
must be established that the transfer of personal data is the most appropriate means for 
attaining the applicant’s objective, and that it is proportionate to that objective12. 
In my view, the transfer of personal data of the non-senior staff of the Commission, 
EFSA and Member States would go beyond what is necessary for attaining your 
objective (i.e. to understand how […] DG Santé manages the main consultation process 
on the 
[…] topic of health and safety in relation to food contact materials). 
                                                 
9 Judgment in Bavarian Lager, C-28/08 P, EU:C:2010:378, paragraph 78. 
10Judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 May 2003 in joined cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01, 
preliminary rulings in proceedings between Rechnungshof and Österreichischer Rundfunk
EU:C:2003:294, paragraph 73. 
11 https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/chemical_safety/food_contact_materials/consultation_en 
12Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015, Dennekamp v European Parliament, T-115/13, 
EU:T:2015:497, paragraph 77. 


You furthermore argue that the appropriate regulation of food contact materials is a 
topic of increasing concern. 
[…]  Against this background, the applicant would like to 
remind the European Commission that openness is a key principle of the European 
Union. 

Please note in this respect that the Court of Justice has confirmed in its Strack judgment 
that a mere interest of members of the public in obtaining certain personal data cannot be 
equated with a necessity to obtain the said data in the meaning of Regulation 45/200113. 
Furthermore, Commission, EFSA and Member State officials not holding any senior 
management position are not directly accountable to the general public, but to their 
respective institutions. 
Against this background, I consider that you have not established the necessity of transfer 
of the respective personal data. Consequently, your argument that, in its initial reply, 
DG Santé [did] not explain how the release of the requested documents would prejudice 
the data subjects
, is irrelevant
As indicated above, the Court of Justice has confirmed that if the applicant has not 
established a need to obtain the personal data requested, the institution does not have to 
examine the absence of prejudice to the person's legitimate interests.14 
Even if the necessity was established (quod non), there is a reason to believe that the 
interests of the data subjects of the request might be prejudiced. Indeed, the disclosure of 
their personal data may cause that the data subjects would be contacted or confronted on 
a personal basis or in their personal lives (e.g. in the context of the political initiatives 
outlined in your confirmatory application) on matters under the remit and control of their 
respective institutions or bodies. Therefore, there is a foreseeable and not purely 
hypothetical risk that the data subjects' legitimate interests would be prejudiced. 
Furthermore, as to the signatures appearing in the documents, which are biometric data, 
I am of the view that the disclosure would also prejudice the legitimate interests of the 
persons concerned as it would expose them to the risk of forgery. 
I conclude that 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 in question, and it 
cannot be assumed that the legitimate rights of the data subjects concerned would not be 
prejudiced by such disclosure. 
Finally, I would like to recall that Article 4(1)(b) has an absolute character and does not 
envisage the possibility to demonstrate the existence of an overriding public interest. 
                                                 
13Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014, Strack v Commission, C-127/13, EU:C:2014:2250, 
paragraphs 107 and 108. 
14 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2015, ClientEarth v EFSA, C-615/13P, EU:C:2015:489, 
paragraph 47-48. 



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 documents requested. However, for the 
reasons explained above, no meaningful further access is possible without undermining 
the interests described above. 
Consequently, I have come to the conclusion that the redacted parts of the documents 
requested are covered in their entirety by the invoked exception to the right of public 
access. 
4.  MEANS OF REDRESS 
Finally, I draw your attention to the means of redress available against this decision. You 
may either bring proceedings before the General Court or file a complaint with the 
European 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