Which one of the two Public Statements by FRA is true?

En attente d'une révision interne par Agence des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne a propos de leur gestion de la demande.

Dear European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights,

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:

Documents containing the reply to the following Question:

Which one of the two Statements by FRA inserted below is true?

Statement no 1 – provided by FRA to Judges under Solemn Sworn. The Statement is accessible at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU... p.61

“61 However, it is not disputed that the IMR, of which the investigator was Chairman on the date he was appointed to conduct the inquiry, had concluded with the FRA a contract worth nearly EUR 500 000 for the submission of information to it concerning discrimination based on sexual orientation, between 2007 and 2008, in Denmark. Furthermore, when the investigator conducted the inquiry, that contract was capable of being renewed repeatedly in the future, as confirmed by the FRA during the hearing”

and reiterated in the Annual Report of the Court at page 206 par. 3 “Impartiality” http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/...

Statement no 2 – provided under a public exercise to access documents ( Request to access contracts concluded by FRA with DIHR ) visible at http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/eu_fu...

The relevant paragraph of the Statement by FRA is presented below:

“With regards to your request dated 29 April, point three related to recital 61 of judgment F-58/10, please be informed that:  The contract was signed on the 4.11.2007 with the Danish Institute for Human Rights for an amount of 499,586 Euros.
The validity of the contract was of one year with no possibility of renewal”.

Please select and mark the correct reply:

Statement 1

Statement 2

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Kurt Weiss a laissé une remarque ()

Deadline 2nd September 2013

EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), Agence des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne

3 Attachments

To the attention of:

Mr Kurt Weiss

www.asktheeu.org

Vienna, 02 September 2013

2013-outgoing-001443

 

 

Subject: Which one of the two Public Statements by FRA is true?

 

 

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

We refer to your e-mail of 12 August 2013 in which you make a request for
access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Your request was
registered under reference number 2013-incoming-001405. 

 

Your request refers to the contract mentioned under recital 61 of judgment
F-58/10.

 

We refer to your initial application of 13 May and 05 June 2013 in which
you have requested access to documents and information related to recital
61 of judgment F-58/10. In our reply of 04 June 2013, reiterated by our
email of 25 June, the requested information was provided with an access to
relevant documents.  

 

Having carefully re-examined your request we would like to reiterate the
answer provided in our replies to your access to documents requests
available under following links:

-       
[1]http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/reque...

-       
[2]http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/reque...

-       
[3]http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/eu_fu...

 

As already informed, the contract in question was signed on the 4.12.2007
with the Danish Institute for Human Rights for an amount of 499,586 Euros.
The validity of the contract was of one year with no possibility of
renewal. Relevant documents (i.e. draft contract and the tender file) you
may find under following links:

-       
[4]http://fra.europa.eu/en/call-for-tender/...

 

The exact title of the tender is “Comparative study on the situation
concerning homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation
in the EU”. The study was not limited to Denmark but rather to the whole
EU.

 

After thorough examination of your application of 12 August 2013, we have
decided to partially disclose the signed contract with its amendment.
Following an examination of these two documents under the provisions of
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, some parts needed to be blanked out as their
disclosure is prevented by exception to the right of access laid down in
the Article 4(2) first indent of Regulation 1049/2001, which provides that
the 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. The expunged parts of the
document contain commercially sensitive information (e.g. bank account
etc.).

 

The exceptions laid down in Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 apply
unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the
document. For such an overriding public interest to exist, this interest,
firstly has to be public and, secondly, overriding i.e. must supersede the
interests protected by virtue of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.
There is no evidence of public interest in disclosure in the sense of
Regulation (EC) 1049/2001that would allow us to waive the exception and
disclose the expunged parts of the document.

 

We would like to draw your attention to provisions laid down in the Code
of good administrative behavior ([5]European Ombudsman Code),
in particular Article 14.3 thereof stating that the rules on dealing
with enquiries “(…) do not apply to correspondence which can reasonably
be regarded as improper, for example, because it is repetitive,
abusive and/or pointless.” Then, the Agency reserves the right to
discontinue any such exchange of correspondence.

 

Please note that pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001,
you may make a confirmatory application asking FRA to reconsider its
position. Such a confirmatory application should be addressed within 15
working days upon receipt of this email to FRA general e-mail:
[6]info@fra.europa.eu 

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Schwarzenbergplatz 11
1040 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43 1 58030-0
Email: [email address]

Visit us on: [7]http://fra.europa.eu | [8]Facebook | [9]Twitter |
[10]YouTube | [11]LinkedIn

Helping to make fundamental rights a reality for everyone in the European
Union

FRA online toolkit to help connect public officials at all levels,
[12]available 25 September. 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/reque...
2. http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/reque...
3. http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/eu_fu...
4. http://fra.europa.eu/en/call-for-tender/...
5. http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/resour...
6. mailto:[email address]
7. http://www.fra.europa.eu/
8. http://www.facebook.com/fundamentalrights
9. http://twitter.com/#!/EURightsAgency
10. http://youtube.com/user/EUAgencyFRA
11. http://www.linkedin.com/company/eu-funda...
12. http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2011/joi...

Dear European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights's handling of my FOI request 'Which one of the two Public Statements by FRA is true?'.

Details

Dear FRA CEO,

Thank you for your reply and for these two new documents disclosed (Contract on homophobia in the EU and its addendum).

You write that my request refers to the contract mentioned under recital 61 of judgment
F-58/10. This is incorrect quoted or at least incomplete.
Let me remind you that my request refers to:
“Documents containing the reply to the following Question: Which one of the two Statements by FRA inserted below is true?”

The FRA had already the opportunity to provide its response to my initial application of 13 May and 05 June 2013 and it did it. This coming back to old applications is misleading and deviates from my request and question of 12 August 2013. As you can see this request is quite clear and refers to contradictory statements by FRA before court and before public (see FRA reply provided to me in June 25, 2013, and Annual Report of the court which refers to case F-58/10, containing one of the statement by FRA. It is directly noticeable that the two statements are contradictory and my request of 12 August 2013 has as purpose to clarify the misleading information provided either to me or to the court.

The FRA refers and reiterate without being asked some old Requests which are either clarified or under clarification before ombudsman.
FRA also decided to disclose at this two documents which is all right. But it should be mentioned that this disclosure still do not clarify the contradictory statements.
FRA did not reply which one of the two Statements inserted in my request of 12 August 2013 is true/correct.

Instead FRA feels necessary to write a unexplainable Statement by raising my “attention to provisions laid down in the Code of good administrative behavior ([5]European Ombudsman Code), in particular Article 14.3 thereof stating that the rules on dealing with enquiries “(…) do not apply to correspondence which can reasonably be regarded as improper, for example, because it is repetitive, abusive and/or pointless.” Then, the Agency reserves the right to discontinue any such exchange of correspondence”.
Taking view to this misleading character of FRA reply I would like to request an internal review and ask for the following punctual clarification:
1. Which one of the two Statements by FRA inserted in my Request of 12 August is true?”
2. Details and reasoning for the statement and related paragraph quoting “Code of good administrative behavior ([5]European Ombudsman Code), in particular Article 14.3 thereof stating that the rules on dealing with enquiries “(…) do not apply to correspondence which can reasonably be regarded as improper, for example, because it is repetitive, abusive and/or pointless.”
3. If there are real reasonable ground in my request of 12 august 2013 to make FRA to declare that it reserves the right to “discontinue any such exchange of correspondence”.
4. Why FRA invokes and bring forward some old request which are now closed or under ombudsman scrutiny?
I read my Request of 12 August 2013 and I cannot identify anything to be framed as repetitive, abusive and pointless. In this context I request relevant information and reasoning from the FRA side, justifying this statement (at this stage still unsubstantiated). The FRA inserted this phrase in some other Requests http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/tende... This seems to be abusively invoking. There are no substation provided.
As to the quoting in Annual Report 2012 of the court I would appreciate to be provided with information if there was submitted a request for correction to the Official Journal of the EU or to the Court itself or the court will correct the recital 61 on its own motion. Thank you.

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

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), Agence des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne

1 Attachment

To the attention of:

Mr Kurt Weiss

www.asktheeu.org

Vienna, 25 September 2013

2013-outgoing-001560

 

 

Subject:         Your application for Access to Documents – reference
number 2013-incoming-001405

 

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

We refer to your e-mail of 12 August 2013, our reply of 02 September 2013
and your confirmatory application of 04 September 2013. Your request for
access to documents has been attributed the reference number
2013-incoming-001405. The outcome of internal review of your request
related to access to documents you may find herewith. Please note that
questions that fall outside the scope of an access to documents request
under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 will not be answered.

 

Having analysed your initial application for access to documents of 12
August 2013, we have established that it referred to the contract
“Comparative study on the situation concerning homophobia and
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the EU” and its
amendment. Both documents have been provided to you on 02 September 2013. 

 

Following your confirmatory application of 04 September 2013, we have
thoroughly re-examined your application but unfortunately the description
given in your email did not enable us to identify any further documents
which would correspond to your request.

 

Nevertheless, in order to be able to treat in a good way this and several
other requests received from you recently, Mr Manolopoulos, the Head of
Administration at the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, would like to
contact you by phone. 

 

Could you please provide us with a phone number where Mr Manolopoulos may
contact you and tell us the best moment to reach you?

 

Please send the contact number to the following email address:

[1]info@fra.europa.eu  

 

Thank you in advance for your kind cooperation.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Schwarzenbergplatz 11
1040 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43 1 58030-0
Email: [email address]

Visit us on: [2]http://fra.europa.eu | [3]Facebook | [4]Twitter |
[5]YouTube | [6]LinkedIn

Helping to make fundamental rights a reality for everyone in the European
Union

FRA online toolkit to help connect public officials at all levels,
[7]available 25 September. 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.fra.europa.eu/
3. http://www.facebook.com/fundamentalrights
4. http://twitter.com/#!/EURightsAgency
5. http://youtube.com/user/EUAgencyFRA
6. http://www.linkedin.com/company/eu-funda...
7. http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2011/joi...

Dear EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA),

Thank you for your email.
There were some critical remarks by FRA made on me under a few Requests to access documents and information (by invoking EU ombudsman Statute – Code in a negative -punitive connotation). See in this website all those critical remarks). I do appreciate the FRA openness, but before to take any further steps, would it be possible to clarify if the critical remarks are withdrawn by FRA? Could FRA state clearly and undoubtedly if this paragraph inserted under a few of my requests was used correctly / incorrectly and fairly/not fairly on me:
FRA paragraph reads: “We would like to draw your attention to provisions laid down in the Code of good administrative behavior ([5]European Ombudsman Code), in particular Article 14.3 thereof stating that the rules on dealing with enquiries “(…) do not apply to correspondence which can reasonably be regarded as improper, for example, because it is repetitive, abusive and/or pointless.” Then, the Agency reserves the right to discontinue any such exchange of correspondence.”
In presence of a clear and undoubtedly Withdrawals of critical remarks, before to proceed with any further steps, would it be possible to upload the pending Briefly Overviews of management team http://fra.europa.eu/en/about-fra/struct...
This was requested also by European Parliament some good months ago under point on Transparency – no 11 – see here http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/a... .
As you can see the overview of Head of Administration delegated by FRA to deal with my requests is missing. I would appreciate if FRA could ensure a public access to the Briefly Overview of Head of Administration.
Point 11 – Transparency under EP Document with ref “P7_TA(2013)0162 2011 discharge: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 1. European Parliament decision of 17 April 2013 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for the financial year 2011 (C7-0247/2012 – 2012/2185(DEC))”

states that European Parliament :

“11. Observes that some of the curricula vitae (CV) and the declarations of interest of the
Management Board members are available on the Agency's website; notes that as far as the Executive Director and the management team are concerned, only CVs are available; calls on the Agency to make the missing information publicly available and to inform the
discharge authority of the progress made on this matter as soon as possible;”
Thank you very much.

Yours sincerely,

Kurt Weiss

David Nicholson a laissé une remarque ()

New Parliamentary questions http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getD...

inserted below for a facile reading

“Question for written answer E-007475/2013 to the Commission
Rule 117

Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE) and Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)
Subject: Conflict of interest - Danish Institute of Human Rights
1. The Danish Institute of Human Rights (DIHR) saw its funding cut by the Danish authorities after ‘irregularities’ had been found. The director in charge at the time the irregularities occurred is now working for an EU agency. The Danish authorities cancelled their support to the DIHR; the EU agency is still funding it.
(a) Has the Commission evaluated the financial transactions from this agency to the DIHR?
(b) Have irregularities been found?
(c) What action has been taken?
(d) Have funds been recovered? If so, what amount?
2. Management board members are leading staff of organisations that receive(d) grants or other financial support from the agency in question.
(a) How are these conflicts of interest managed?
(b) Have those members been involved in the process of granting funding to their organisations?
3. In the past there have been European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) cases involving agency staff in response to allegations that documents had been backdated, that staff had been mobbed and that the agency had not complied with existing rules on recruitment procedures.
(a) What was the result of these investigations?
(b) Could the Commission provide Parliament with the recommendations that OLAF issued?
(c) If there were no recommendations, could the Commission provide Parliament with a justification?
(d) What measures have been taken by the agency to prevent harassment, mobbing, etc.?
(e) Has any action been taken in response to incidents of harassment of staff members by other employees?
4. Are there any court cases pending against this agency? How many? What is the substance of these cases?
5. Who is bearing the costs of legal representation for staff of the agency before the courts? In which cases?
6. Could the Commission or the agency give details on the poem competition in 2010? How many people participated? How much money was spent?”

http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/mep_m...

Dear EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA),

This is a kind reminder and follow up for my request to access documents and information in accordance to Regulation 1049/2001.

Yours sincerely,

Kurt Weiss