Dear Secretariat General of the European Commission,

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:

All documentation (including but not limited to all email correspondence, attendance lists, agendas, background papers, transcripts, recordings and minutes/notes) relating to the meeting listed below:

1. Between PepsiCo and cabinet member of Commissioner Frans Timmermans, Helena Braun, on the 1st June 2021.

2. Between PepsiCo and Commissioner Frans Timmermans on the 22nd February 2022.

3. Between PepsiCo, Nestlé S.A., Tetra Pak Group, The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment, Procter & Gamble and cabinet member of Commissioner Frans Timmermans, Helena Braun, on the 4th February 2022.

4. Between PepsiCo, Suntory Beverage and Food Europe, Union of European Beverages Association, The Coca-Cola Company and cabinet member of Commissioner Frans Timmermans, Sarah Nelen, on the 16th February 2021.

I would prefer you to produce the documents on a rolling basis, rather than waiting until the full response is ready, and I would be pleased to receive an initial list of all documents as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully,
Venetia Roxburgh
1 Long Lane
London

Dear Secretariat General of the European Commission,

The response to my request is long overdue. Please respond with the requested documents. Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Venetia Roxburgh

Dear Secretariat General of the European Commission,

Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.

I am filing the following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request 'Meetings between SG and PepsiCo'.

I have waited for five months for a response to this request, which I submitted on November 7th 2022. On December 19th 2022, I was told that the response "shall reach you soon". Despite follow-ups, I have not been able to acquire a status update on my request.
I ask you to review why it has taken so long for this request to be processed, and to ensure that I am provided with a response urgently.

A full history of my request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/meeti...

Yours faithfully,
Venetia Roxburgh

Dear Secretariat General of the European Commission,

Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.

I am filing the following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request 'Meetings between SG and PepsiCo'.

A full history of my request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/meeti...

Of the 18 documents identified by the Commission, all were partially disclosed as they contained personal data. I do not wish to contend the Commission's decision on this.

My confirmatory application refers to accessing the '3727992 Email in follow up' document regarding PepsiCo, which was redacted on the grounds of the protection of PepsiCo's commercial interests, as set out in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001. I ask that the Secretariat General reviews this redaction, taking into account the following arguments.

Firstly, there is a clear and strong overriding public interest. Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides that "[t]he institutions shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of: — commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property…unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure".

The Commission does not appear to have considered whether there is an overriding public interest, despite the fact that there are multiple reasons for ensuring that decision making is as open as possible, including this being an explicit requirement of the EU treaties. Specifically, Article 15 TFEU requires that “In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.” It should be noted here that the openness is of all activities, and clearly also applies to meetings with stakeholders.

By requiring maximum levels of openness in decision making, the treaties mandate that any limitations, such as Article 4(3), should be interpreted very narrowly indeed, and any harm commercial interests has to be particularly serious to outweigh this significant public interest.

The direct connection between transparency and participation has been made in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, for example, in the case of Council of the European Union v. Access Info Europe, where the Court underscored the relationship between accessing documents and participation in EU decision making, stating that “If citizens are to be able to exercise their democratic rights, they must be in a position to follow in detail the decision-making process” and that they should “have access to all relevant information.” In this case, the relevant information pertains to documents concerning meetings between PepsiCo and the Commission.

The meeting between PepsiCo and the EU Commission to which this email relates to included views in relation to "green economic transition, circular economy and packaging". Since the stated purpose of the meeting was to present views to policymakers, there is a clear public interest in understanding the interaction between PepsiCo and the Commission contained within the documents.

An additional aspect of the strong public interest in receiving this information is that it relates to decision making on environmental matters. Given the overwhelming importance of environmental protection, in the face of a looming climate crisis, and consistent with the EU’s commitment to the Green Deal, it is absolutely essential that all elements of decision making relating to environmental legislation be public. Only with such transparency can European citizens be assured that everything possible is being done to advance on environmental protection. This public interest alone argues for release of these documents, an argument that is strengthened when other aspects of the public interest test, as set out above, are taken into consideration.

Secondly, the EU Commission should have considered the possibility of partial disclosure rather than full redaction of the documents in question. The Commission wrote that 'the author of the document has objected to disclosure of parts of the document'. However, a redaction of strictly only commercially sensitive
positions included in the PepsiCo follow-up email would allow for the Commission to serve the public interest in disclosing the positions taken by the company on the green economic transition, circular economy and packaging.

In conclusion, I assert that the Commission has failed to demonstrate sufficiently the harm to commercial interests and has failed to apply properly the public interest test.

I ask that the Secretariat General review this decision.

Yours faithfully,
Venetia Roxburgh