Dear Maritime Affairs and Fisheries,
Under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, I request access to the following documents concerning the EU's Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs, formerly FPAs) with third countries — in particular those with West African countries (including Mauritania, Morocco, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, the Gambia, Cabo Verde, Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia) and with countries in the Pacific and Indian Ocean (including the Seychelles, Madagascar and the Cook Islands), as well as any other agreements under which Dutch or EU vessels have fished:

For each protocol, the EU's financial contribution, broken down into (a) the payment for access to the fish stocks and (b) the sectoral support to the partner country.
The decisions and regulations allocating the fishing opportunities under each protocol among the Member States, and the data on the uptake of those opportunities per Member State.
The ex-ante and ex-post evaluation reports of these agreements, including evaluations prepared by external consultants, in so far as these have not already been made public.
Internal analyses and correspondence concerning the cost-benefit ratio of these agreements and the share of the pelagic sector in their uptake.

Where any document originates from or is held by the Council of the European Union, please inform me accordingly or consult the Council under Article 4(4) of the Regulation, so that I may address the Council directly if appropriate. Should a document only partly qualify for disclosure, I request partial access under Article 4(6) rather than a refusal in its entirety. I would prefer to receive the documents in electronic form, and a reply in English.
For the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, my details are:

Name: Parcival Weijnen
[email address]
Postal address: kerkhoekweg 22
5231EK, Den Bosch

EU country of nationality: The Netherlands
Yours faithfully,

Parcival Weijnen

Subject: Re: Access to documents request EASE 2026/3109 — clarification of SFPAs covered

Dear MARE Access to Documents Team,

Thank you for your message concerning my request for access to documents registered on 17/06/2026 under case number EASE 2026/3109. In response to your invitation under Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, I am happy to clarify which Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements my request covers.

My request concerns the SFPAs, their predecessors (Fisheries Partnership Agreements and earlier bilateral fisheries agreements) and the protocols thereto — both currently in force and former — between the EU and the following twelve countries: Mauritania, Morocco, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, the Gambia, Cabo Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia, Greenland, the Seychelles, Madagascar and the Cook Islands.

For the avoidance of doubt, this clarification concerns only which agreements are covered. The categories of documents requested remain as set out in my original request of 16/06/2026, namely:

1. For each protocol, the EU's financial contribution, broken down into (a) the payment for access to the fish stocks and (b) the sectoral support to the partner country;
2. The decisions and regulations allocating the fishing opportunities under each protocol among the Member States, and the data on the uptake of those opportunities per Member State;
3. The ex-ante and ex-post evaluation reports of these agreements, including evaluations prepared by external consultants, in so far as these have not already been made public;
4. Internal analyses and correspondence concerning the cost-benefit ratio of these agreements and the share of the pelagic sector in their uptake.

For clarity, the documents referred to under points (1) and (4) include documents showing, per agreement and per protocol period, the fees paid by vessel owners for their fishing authorisations — where available broken down by Member State — so that the EU's net contribution can be established alongside the gross financial contribution.

The relevant period is 1994 to the present (2026).

As stated previously, I would prefer to receive the documents in electronic form, and a reply in English. Should a document only partly qualify for disclosure, I request partial access under Article 4(6) rather than a refusal in its entirety.

I trust this allows my request to be processed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if further specification would be helpful.

Yours faithfully,
Parcival Weijnen

Dear Maritime Affairs and Fisheries,
Subject: EASE 2026/3109 — acknowledgement of extension and proposal for phased disclosure

Thank you for your message concerning my application for access to documents of 17 June 2026, registered under case number EASE 2026/3109.

I take note of the extension of the time limit to 19 August 2026 pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

For the record, I would observe that the reasons given relate to the fact that the documents concerned are held by several services which need to be consulted. Article 7(3) provides for an extension in exceptional cases and requires detailed reasons to be stated. The internal distribution of documents across services is a common feature of applications of this kind and does not in itself appear to constitute an exceptional case within the meaning of that provision. I raise this point solely to record my position and not as an objection to the additional time as such.

In order to assist the services concerned, I would like to make a practical proposal. My application covers Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements with twelve partner countries. Rather than awaiting a single reply covering all of them, I would welcome disclosure in stages, beginning with the documents relating to Mauritania, Morocco, Greenland and the Seychelles, followed by the remaining countries as the assessment progresses.

I would emphasise that this is a proposal regarding the sequence and timing of disclosure only. It does not entail any narrowing of the scope of my application, which is maintained in full in respect of all twelve countries. Should the services nevertheless consider that a fair solution within the meaning of Article 6(3) is required, I would be glad to discuss the practical arrangements, on the understanding that the substantive scope of the request remains unchanged.

Finally, please note that I am travelling until 23 August 2026 and may not be able to respond immediately to correspondence sent during that period. Any reply or proposal issued in the meantime will be dealt with promptly upon my return.

Yours faithfully,

Parcival Weijnen

Dear Maritime Affairs and Fisheries,

I hereby acknowledge receipt of the initial reply of 18 August 2026 (Ref. Ares(2026)7969772), signed by Ms Carmen Preising, concerning my application for access to documents registered on 17 June 2026 under case number EASE 2026/3109. I note for the record that, as indicated in my message of 6 August 2026, I was travelling until 23 August and was able to examine the reply and its enclosures on 24 August 2026.

In accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, I request the Commission to review the position taken in that reply. I set out below the grounds on which I do so.

Preliminary observation on the scope of the assessment

The initial reply states that 66 documents were identified as falling within the scope of my application. That figure does not reflect the scope of the assessment actually carried out. Point (3) of my application expressly requested evaluation reports only "in so far as these have not already been made public", yet a substantial part of the 66 documents consists of evaluation reports which the reply itself identifies as already publicly available. At the same time, two of the four categories of my application yielded no identified documents at all, as set out below.

1. Point (2) of the application: the allocation decisions and regulations, and uptake data per Member State

The initial reply states that the decisions and regulations referred to under point (2) "can be found in each protocol". This is incorrect as a matter of fact.

The allocation of fishing opportunities among the Member States is effected by separate legal acts of the Council, distinct from the protocols themselves. By way of example: Council Regulation (EU) 2019/440 of 29 November 2018 on the allocation of fishing opportunities under the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Implementation Protocol thereto (OJ L 77, 20.3.2019, p. 1); and Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1926 of 14 November 2019 on the allocation of fishing opportunities under the Protocol on the implementation of the Agreement on a Sustainable Fisheries Partnership between the European Union and the Republic of Senegal. Neither instrument appears in the list of 66 documents enclosed with the initial reply, and neither is contained in the protocol to which it relates. Corresponding allocation instruments exist for other protocols covered by my application.

Furthermore, the second limb of point (2) — the data on the uptake of those fishing opportunities per Member State — is not contained in any protocol. Protocols establish the fishing opportunities granted; they do not record the extent to which those opportunities were subsequently taken up. That information is held by the Commission in the context of the management of fishing authorisations and the monitoring of the implementation of the protocols. Where such information is held in a database, I would recall that data capable of being extracted by means of the search tools available for that database falls within the concept of a document under Article 3(a) of the Regulation.

I therefore request that the documents falling under point (2) be identified and assessed.

2. Point (4) of the application: internal analyses and correspondence

Point (4) of my application concerns internal analyses and correspondence concerning the cost-benefit ratio of these agreements and the share of the pelagic sector in their uptake.

The initial reply does not identify a single document under this heading. It states instead that the requested information "can be found in the ex-ante and ex-post evaluation reports of the protocols that are carried out by external contractors". That is not a decision within the meaning of the Regulation. Reports produced by external contractors are, by definition, not internal analyses or internal correspondence of the Commission. My application was directed at documents held by the Commission and originating within it, not at the substantive information they may contain.

The consequence is that, in respect of this category, no exception under Article 4 has been invoked, no reasons have been stated, and no declaration has been made that no such documents exist. No concrete and individual examination has taken place. A redirection of this kind operates as an implicit refusal without legal basis.

I therefore request that the Commission either identify and assess the documents falling under point (4), or, should it maintain that no such documents are held, state this explicitly and in a reasoned manner, so that the position may be reviewed.

3. The fees paid by vessel owners

In my reply of 7 July 2026 (Ref. Ares(2026)6799900), given in response to the Commission's invitation under Article 6(2), I specified that the documents referred to under points (1) and (4) include documents showing, per agreement and per protocol period, the fees paid by vessel owners for their fishing authorisations, where available broken down by Member State, so that the EU's net contribution can be established alongside the gross financial contribution.

That element forms part of the application as clarified at the Commission's own request. It is not addressed anywhere in the initial reply, and it does not appear in the reproduction of my application set out in that reply.

I would observe, in anticipation, that the fee schedules laid down in the annexes to the protocols do not satisfy this element of the application. Those provisions establish the rates payable; they do not record the amounts actually paid in respect of a given protocol period. It is the latter which my application concerns.

4. The temporal scope of the application

The initial reply records, in its opening paragraphs, that my application covers the agreements and protocols concerned, both currently in force and former, "covering the period between 1994 and 2026", and my clarification of 7 July expressly extended to predecessor Fisheries Partnership Agreements and earlier bilateral fisheries agreements. That temporal scope was thus accepted without qualification.

Of the 66 documents identified, two predate 2005: document n. 39 (Guinea-Bissau, protocol 2001) and document n. 15 (Côte d'Ivoire, protocol 2004). The first decade of the period covered by the application is therefore almost entirely unrepresented.

The gaps are substantial. They include, among others: the EU–Morocco fisheries agreement of 1995 and its protocol, the successive protocols with Senegal covering the period from 1994 until the lapse of that agreement in 2006, the protocols with Mauritania preceding the 2006 agreement, and the protocols to the EU–Greenland agreement covering 2007–2012, 2013–2015 and 2016–2020, together with the evaluation reports relating to those instruments. In respect of Liberia, a single document has been identified and no evaluation report at all.

I request that the Commission confirm whether the search carried out was limited in time, and if so on what basis, and that it specify which registers, filing systems and archives were consulted. To the extent that documents from this period are held, I request that they be identified and assessed.

5. The request concerning documents held by the Council

My original application of 16 June 2026 requested that, where any document originates from or is held by the Council of the European Union, I be informed accordingly or the Council be consulted, so that I might address the Council directly if appropriate. The initial reply does not respond to this request in any way. Given that the allocation instruments referred to under ground 1 above are acts of the Council, I renew that request.

6. Subsidiary: the partial refusal under Article 4(1)(b)

Documents n. 6, 24 and 31 have been disclosed in redacted form under Article 4(1)(b), on the ground that I had not established the necessity of transmission of the personal data for a specific purpose in the public interest within the meaning of Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. I now do so.

I am an investigative journalist. The present application forms part of a research project, conducted jointly with an academic economist, reconstructing the public funding of the fishing sector over the period from 1994 to the present, intended for both journalistic and peer-reviewed publication. The three documents in question are evaluation reports on which the Commission relied in deciding whether to renew the protocols concerned, and which — unlike the majority of the evaluations listed — are not publicly available. Assessing the weight properly to be attached to those evaluations requires knowing who conducted them, in what capacity, and with what institutional affiliation, and which persons and bodies were consulted. That assessment cannot be made on the basis of anonymised reports. The public interest in the scrutiny of the expenditure of Union funds on fisheries agreements with third countries is, I submit, self-evident.

I would add that the persons concerned appear largely to have acted in a professional capacity — as authors of the reports, as officials, or as representatives of consulted bodies — and that the identity and function of such persons attracts a lesser degree of protection than personal data relating to their private sphere. I invite the Commission to distinguish on that basis, and, in accordance with Article 4(6) of the Regulation, to grant access to the widest extent possible rather than to redact uniformly.

I would be grateful for confirmation of receipt of this confirmatory application. As previously indicated, I would prefer to receive documents in electronic form and a reply in English.

Yours faithfully,

Parcival Weijnen