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:

Training material concerning
EU Learn - AI Generalist Learning Package
EU Learn - AI learning package for managers
EU Learn AI package for developers
EU Learn - Ethics in the Age of Generative AI (BEGINNER)
Risk management logic of the AI Act and related standards

as mentioned in the webinar of 20. February 2025, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en...

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Schmalenberger

Taylor Wessing Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB
Hanseatic Trade Center
Am Sandtorkai 41
20457 Hamburg

Hello,

Thank you for your message regarding my request for access to Commission documents registered under case number 2025/1063. I confirm receipt of your message and the attached document.

Kind regards,

Alexander Schmalenberger

Subject: Request for internal review (Confirmatory application) pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Your Reference: EASE 2025/1063

Dear Sir/Madam,

Pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, I hereby request an internal review (confirmatory application) of the decision made by the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security dated 3 April 2025 (Ref. Ares (2025)2687347) concerning my application for access to documents dated 21 February 2025, reference number EASE 2025/1063 ('AI Literacy documents').

In the response, access to certain documents, specifically parts of the "EU Learn - AI Generalist Learning Package", "EU Learn - AI learning package for managers", and "EU Learn AI package for developers", was refused citing Article 4(1)(b) (protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual) and Article 4(6) (partial access / disproportionate administrative burden) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

The justification provided was that the learning materials contained extensive video recordings featuring staff members, whose personal data must be protected (Art. 9(1)(b) of Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2018/1725). It was further stated that redaction would entail a disproportionate administrative burden due to the volume and nature of the data (videos) and would render the remaining information meaningless.

I cannot concur with this reasoning for the following reasons:

Nature of the documents and plausibility of the refusal: The contents of the learning packages listed in the annex to the response (e.g., under points 1, 2, and 3 of the annex) largely consist of links to external resources (LinkedIn Learning, websites) or references to publicly available documents (e.g., "Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI"), alongside some apparently internal titles (e.g., "AI in your daily work - Theory", "Guide to AI tools in the EC"). Based on this list, it is not apparent that the materials consist predominantly of video recordings requiring extensive redaction. They primarily appear to be general training materials, presentations, or guides.
Possibility of redaction: Even if individual internal documents or videos contain personal data (names, images of non-senior staff members), my interest lies in the substantive content of the AI literacy training materials, not in identifying individuals. Redacting names or faces in videos is technically feasible and standard practice when granting partial access. It has not been plausibly explained why such redaction would render the documents "meaningless". Especially concerning training content on a crucial topic like AI, the substance is of significant public interest.
Proportionality of administrative burden: The general assertion of a disproportionate administrative burden, referencing case law (Kuijer v Council, Mattila v Council and Commission), is not sufficiently substantiated. It is not specified how many documents or hours of video are actually affected, nor why the effort would exceed the limits of what can reasonably be required. Given the importance of transparency regarding the training of EU personnel in the field of Artificial Intelligence, the public interest in the content seems to outweigh the claimed administrative burden for potential redaction.
Therefore, I respectfully request that you review the decision and grant me access to the requested documents. Should full access not be possible, I explicitly request partial access to the documents following the redaction of personal data falling under Article 4(1)(b).

A complete history of my request and all correspondence is available online at the following address: https://www.asktheeu.org/request/ai_lite...

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Schmalenberger