DG CNECT, data subjects requests under article 13 of Regulation 45/2001

La demande a été rejetée par Délégué à la protection des données.

Dear European Commission Data Protection Officer,

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:

1. Data subjects requests pursuant to article 13 of Regulation 45/2001 lodged with the DG CNECT R.4 'Compliance' Unit in 2013 (this year), in which requests the Data Protection Officer was one of the several listed recipients.

2. In the event DG CNECT consulted with Data Protection Officer about the requested under (1), the documents concerning the consultations.

The parts of the documents protected by article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 are to be blanked out.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Orestis BEKAS

Dear European Commission Data Protection Officer,

As it appears from the public website asktheeu.org the application of 20 November 2013 under Regulation 1049/2011 has not been registered. even though two weeks have elapsed since its dispatch.

It is worth noting that DG CNECT has encountered great difficulties in finding in its files such kind of data subject requests, since it has failed to identify the relevant documents. Please see the DG CNECT initial reply to GestDem No 2013/3776 Ares(2013)3507052 - 18/11/2013, requests #9 and #10, http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/640/r....

I would therefore be obliged if your Unit would promptly register the application.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Orestis BEKAS

Dear European Commission Data Protection Officer,

It appears that your Unit has not acknowledged the registration of my application of 20 November 2013, i.e. fifteen working days after its submission.

The application itself is very simple, it falls under the sole responsibility of your Unit, and it cannot concern more than a dozen of documents. Therefore, there is no reason for such an excessive delay in acknowledging its registration.

I would therefore be obliged if your Unit would promptly acknowledge the registration of the application.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Orestis BEKAS

Délégué à la protection des données

Dear Mr. Orestis BEKAS,
The request you refer to has not been received by the Data Protection
Officer, nor registered by the Secretariat General Transparency unit.
However, DG CNECT will be responsible for responding to your questions.
Yours sincerely
Data Protection Officer team
The European Commission

Afficher les sections citées

Délégué à la protection des données

Dear Mr. Bekas,


We herewith acknowledge receipt of your email of 13/12/2013 wherein you
provide us with the requested clarifications.


Please be informed that you can expect an answer by 16/01/2014.


Best regards,




Dear European Commission Data Protection Officer,

Thank you for your email of 16 December.

I would like to respectfully express my astonishment and PROTEST about the Data Protection Officer (‘DPO’) effective refusal to respond to my application under Regulation 1049/2001 and its transfer to DG CNECT.

In the initial response to GestDem No 3776/2013 DG CNECT refused access altogether to data subjects requests under article 13 of Regulation 45/2001, http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/640/r... (request under #9 and #10). The undersigned submitted a confirmatory application, http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/fp6_f....

This application was purposefully lodged with the DPO and NOT with DG CNECT for documents held by the DPO. Unfortunately, I am compelled to spell out the reason it was lodged with the DPO.

Firstly, due regard is to be had the DPO is still tolerating the two MANIFESTLY false statements of the prior notifications DG ENTR DPO-3334.1 and DG MOVE DPO-3420.2, http://ec.europa.eu/dpo-register/details... and http://ec.europa.eu/dpo-register/details... respectively (last checked on 5/12/2013):

“This processing has been submitted to the EDPS who concluded that Article 27 is not applicable.

3. Sub-Contractors

Secondly, due to the two false statements of DPO-3338.1 and that DG CNECT caused the President of European Commission to misrepresent facts to the Ombudsman in his letter of 30/8/2013 Ares(2013)2952891 in order to conceal the DG INFSO risk-based audits (http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/583/r... and http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/dg_in...) it is certain that DG CNECT will deliberately conceal documents concerning this application. In the event the DPO was in cc of the documents at issue, I had expected that the current DPO would not dare compromise the integrity of the office by not fully complying with Regulation 1049/2001. It seems that the transfer of the application to DG CNECT only aims at avoiding the disclosure by the DPO of the documents at issue.

Applicants may not cause a particular application to be handled by a specific division of an Institution. However, they can define the application in a certain way such that it would likely preclude a transfer of the application from the DPO to another Directorate-General. In all cases, the confirmatory application would be handled by the Secretariat-General, meaning that the DPO files will have to be searched if the applicant provides some evidence that the DPO does indeed hold such documents.

In case the response to the confirmatory application is that no documents were found, then the data subjects, whose requests pursuant to article 13 of Regulation 45/2001 had temporarily vanished, may post their request to a public website. Then fresh applications may be lodged, in which case the Secretariat-General will be compelled to carry out an exhaustive search for documents and disclose them.

The above considerations lead to the following conclusions:

1. By way of applications under Regulation 1049/2001 some documents proving the infringements of Regulation 45/2001 by DG CNECT will inevitably be disclosed.

2. The DPO may choose to further compromise the integrity of the Office by siding with the Research family DGs, instead of admitting the past ‘looking the other way’ in so far the FP6 and FP7 programmes are concerned and compliance their with Regulation 45/2001.

3. The public expects that the foremost official tasked with ensuring the data subject rights (e.g. the DPO under article 24 of Regulation 45/2001) will no longer tolerate flagrant infringements of Regulation 45/2001 by the Research family DGs, especially in the public register of article 4(4) of Commission Decision 597/2008 (OJ 2008 L193, p7) for which the DPO is personally responsible.

4. The DPO should not expect that his conduct will be unnoticed by the public and that such a conduct will not be brought to the attention of the competent entities. This is all the more so in view of the implementing powers to be entrusted to the Commission by the Commission’s proposal for a new General Data Protection Regulation.

5. An Institution whose DPO is prepared to side with the illegalities of the Research family DGs has conceivably lost the moral high-ground in so far the fundamental personal data protection right is concerned. The stance of the DPO has manifestly compromised the moral authority of the Commission in so far the Commission’s proposal for that Regulation provides that the Commission would be empowered to adopt implementing rules.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Orestis BEKAS

EC ARES NOREPLY, Délégué à la protection des données

1 Attachment

Dear Sir,

Please find attached document Ares(2014)427738 regarding "Your application for access to documents – Ref GestDem No 2013/6336 under Regulation 1049/2011 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents" sent by Mr Madelin Robert on 20/02/2014.

Kind regards.

Note: This e-mail was automatically generated by the European Commission's central mail registration system.
Replies by e-mail must be addressed to the original sender Madelin Robert (mailto:[email address]).
Remarque : Cet e-mail a été généré automatiquement par le système d'enregistrement central du courrier de la Commission européenne.
Toute réponse éventuelle par e-mail doit être adressée à l'expéditeur en personne, à savoir Madelin Robert (mailto:[email address]).

Dear Sir,

Thank your for the reply of 20/2/2014 Ares(2014)427738 concerning GestDem 6336/2013.

I am afraid that your reply to request #1 seems to be somewhat incompatible with the practice of DG CNECT and the EDPS about the very same kind of applications under Regulation 1049/2001, specifically the requested of data subjects under article 13 of Regulation 1049/2001.

Two examples are found at the links http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/640/r... and http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/1060/....

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Orestis BEKAS