Annual performance monitoring reports
Dear Informatics,
Under Regulation 1049/2001, I request access to the following documents held by DG DIGIT:
- The annual performance monitoring reports (including Key Performance Indicators - KPIs) for the projects/services handled by Sector 3 – Content Management (Europa Web Platform solutions such as EWPP, OpenEuropa ***and the maintenance teams***) within Unit B1 (formerly D1) for the years 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025.
- Specifically, I request the KPI Performance Dashboard for the DIGIT.B1 L3 Support/Maintenance (GRP-Maintenance-team) presented by the Project Manager in the beginning of 2025 regarding the 2024 reporting year.
Yours faithfully,
Victor Bourgade
Dear Sir or Madam,
We are writing to you concerning your request for access to documents sent
on 28/04/2026 and registered on 28/04/2026 under case number 2026/2268.
Since you have not indicated your postal address, we are not able to start
handling your request. The 15 working days to reply to your request will
start running only when you send us your postal address.
You can send your postal address by replying to this e-mail. If we do not
receive your reply we may close this case.
Please note that you can submit a request for access to Commission
documents via the portal [1]'Request a Commission document', which does
not require you to indicate your postal address.
Why do we need your personal postal address?
Since 1 April 2014, the submission of a postal address became a mandatory
feature when submitting an application for access to Commission documents
via an e-mail. We would like to explain why we need your postal address in
order to register and handle your application for access to documents when
submitted via e-mail:
• Firstly, to obtain legal certainty as regards the date you received
the European Commission reply to your application for public access to
documents. Article 297 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU) states that 'decisions which specify to whom
they are addressed, shall be notified to those to whom they are
addressed and shall take effect upon such notification.' In line with
this provision, if the Commission does not grant full access to the
requested documents, it notifies the reply to the applicant via
registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt or via delivery
service. This requires an indication of a valid postal address by the
applicant;
• Secondly, to apply correctly the [2]Data Protection Regulation (EU)
2018/1725. Knowing whether the applicant is an EU resident (or not) is
necessary for deciding which conditions shall apply for the
transmissions of personal data to applicants for access to documents.
These conditions are not the same for recipients established in the
Union and for recipients in third countries. As the vast majority of
the documents requested contain personal data, the Commission cannot
ensure the correct application of the data protection rules in the
absence of a postal address;
• Thirdly, to apply correctly [3]Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Article
4(1)(b) of that Regulation refers to the protection of the privacy and
integrity of the individual and has to be applied in line with the
Data Protection Regulation;
• Fourthly, to protect the interest of other citizens and safeguard the
principle of good administration. The Commission has to treat all
citizens equally by ensuring that the legal framework for public
access to documents is respected. For example, it has to verify
whether Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is being evaded
by introducing several requests under different identities. Indeed, in
its Ryanair judgment ([4]EU:T:2010:511), the General Court confirmed
that Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 cannot be evaded by
splitting an application into several, seemingly separate, parts. In
addition, the Commission has to make sure that the legal framework is
respected and the right of access to documents is not abused by making
requests under an invented identity.
The considerations above show that the request for and the consequent
processing of the applicant's postal address is not only appropriate, but
also strictly necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the
public interest within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of Data Protection
Regulation, namely providing a smooth and effective access to documents.
Yours faithfully,
Directorate-General for Digital Services - Access to Documents
European Commission
References
Visible links
1. https://www.ec.europa.eu/transparency/do...
2. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
3. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
4. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
Dear Sir or Madam,
We hereby acknowledge the receipt of your request for access to documents
sent on 28/04/2026 and registered on 29/04/2026 under the case number
2026/2268.
We will handle your request within 15 working days as of the date of
registration. The time-limit expires on 26/05/2026. We will let you know
if we need to extend this time limit for additional 15 working days.
To find more information on how we process your personal data, please see
[1]the privacy statement.
Yours faithfully,
Directorate-General for Digital Services - Access to Documents
European Commission
References
Visible links
1. https://ec.europa.eu/info/principles-and...
Dear Informatics,
I've just sent my physical address to your email.
I see you already acted upon it.
Thanks for your promptness.
Yours faithfully,
Victor Bourgade
Dear Sir,
We are writing concerning your request for access to Commission documents
registered on 29/04/2026 under case number EASE 2026/2268.
We are currently working on your request. However, we have not yet been
able to gather all the elements necessary to carry out a full analysis of
your request. We will not be able to send you the reply within the
prescribed time limit expiring on 26/05/2026.
Therefore, in line with Article 7(3) of [1]Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001,
we need to extend this time limit by 15 additional working days. The new
time limit expires on 16/06/2026.
We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
Kind regards,
References
Visible links
1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
Dear Informatics,
Thank you for your communication and for the notification regarding the extension of the time limit under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
While I acknowledge this procedural extension, I must note my surprise that additional time is required to handle this application. As stated in the initial request, the scope is highly localized and strictly delimited to:
- The annual performance monitoring reports for Sector 3 (Content Management) within Unit B1 spanning 2022 to 2025.
- One specific KPI Performance Dashboard for the DIGIT.B1 L3 Support/Maintenance team from early 2025.
As these are regular, finalized operational documents belonging to a single specific Sector and Unit, they should be readily accessible within that unit's active archives.
In the interest of the principle of Good Administration, I trust that retrieving these specific files will not require the entirety of the extended period, and I look forward to receiving your substantive reply as soon as they are compiled.
Yours faithfully,
Victor Bourgade
Dear Mr Bourgade,
Please find attached a message concerning your request for access to
Commission documents registered under the above case number 2026/2268.
Please acknowledge the receipt of this message by return email.
Kind regards,
DIGIT Access to documents team.
Dear Secretariat-General of the European Commission,
Pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, I am submitting this Confirmatory Application to request a full review of the initial decision made regarding my application for access to documents under reference EASE 2026/2268.
The initial reply provided by the Directorate-General for Digital Services (DG DIGIT) completely evades the core scope of my application. The handling Unit has provided generic developer-level Git statistics and open-source code commit trackers that I did not request, while completely omitting the actual operational management documents specified in my application.
My application explicitly requested access to two distinct tiers of performance data:
1. The annual performance monitoring reports (including Key Performance Indicators - KPIs) for the projects/services handled by Sector 3 – Content Management (Europa Web Platform solutions such as EWPP, OpenEuropa, and the maintenance teams) within Unit B1 for the years 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025.
2. Specifically, the KPI Performance Dashboard for the DIGIT.B1 L3 Support/Maintenance (GRP/OEL-Maintenance-team) presented by the Project Manager in the beginning of 2025 regarding the 2024 reporting year.
Regarding item 2, I know for an absolute fact that this specific KPI Performance Dashboard exists, as it was directly presented to me by management. It evaluates the Level 3 (L3) Support and Maintenance team's macro-performance (such as ticket volumes, backlog depletion, and resolution SLAs).
Regarding item 1, a European Commission Unit is structurally and legally required to maintain formal annual performance monitoring reports and project KPIs to justify its budget, operations, and service delivery. The claim that a generic code commit tracker satisfies this broad multi-year request for official monitoring reports is entirely untenable.
By acting as though my request has been fulfilled while withholding the actual operational documents, the handling Unit is actively dodging its transparency obligations.
Therefore, I kindly request that the Secretariat-General intervene, overrule this initial assessment, conduct a rigorous search for both the annual performance monitoring reports and the specific L3 Support KPI Performance Dashboard presented by the PM in early 2025, and grant full public access to them.
Yours faithfully,
Victor Axel Bourgade
Dear Sir or Madam,
We hereby acknowledge the receipt of your confirmatory request for case
2026/2268, sent on 15/06/2026 and registered on 15/06/2026.
We will handle your confirmatory request within 15 working days as of the
date of registration. The time-limit expires on 06/07/2026. We will let
you know if we need to extend this time limit for additional 15 working
days.
Yours faithfully,
Secretariat-General - Access to Documents
European Commission
Hello,
We are writing concerning your confirmatory request for access to
Commission documents for case 2026/2268 registered on 15/06/2026.
We are currently working on your confirmatory request. However, we have
not yet been able to gather all the elements necessary to carry out a full
analysis of your request. We will not be able to send you the reply within
the prescribed time limit expiring on 06/07/2026.
Therefore, in line with Article 8(2) of [1]Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 we
need to extend this time limit by 15 additional working days. The new time
limit expires on 28/07/2026.
We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
Kind regards,
Secretariat-General of the Commission
References
Visible links
1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
Dear Informatics,
I would like to state for the public record that:
- My initial request (EASE 2026/2268) to the Data Protection Officer and dated 28/04/2026 and due on 26/05/2026 was extended by your services to 16/06/2026.
- This extension was answered by the DPO on 01/06/2026 with documents completely unrelated to my request.
- I formally escalated the matter for incompleteness via a Confirmatory Application on the 15/06/2026, logged both on AskTheEU.org and on the EASE portal under reference EASE 2026/3040.
- The duplicate entry on the EASE portal was closed on 30/06/2026 with the justification "Duplicate of reference EASE 2026/2268 treated as a confirmatory application," while the Secretariat-General publicly acknowledged the confirmatory request here with an initial deadline of 06/07/2026.
- The Secretariat General then requested another extension to the 28/07/2026.
As of today, 29/07/2026, the extended statutory deadline has passed, and DG DIGIT has failed to provide the requested performance reports or any legally grounded justification for the delay.
Pursuant to Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the failure of the institution to respond within the statutory time limit constitutes an implicit negative decision (implicit refusal). I record this failure to act publicly and reserve all rights to pursue further legal redress before the EU judicial authorities.
Yours faithfully,
Victor Bourgade