Dear Madam, Sir,

On 16 September 2024, the Netherlands has submitted a modified recovery and resilience plan (RRP). On 4 October 2024 the Commission has endorsed the modified plan, by publishing a proposal for a Council Implementing Decision (2024/0265 (NLE)).

One of the amended mesaures is milestone 36 of investment C2.1 I1-2 (Quantum Delta NL), which the Netherlands proposed to amend "to implement a better alternative allowing to reduce the administrative burden, whilst still reaching the objectives of the respective measures".

The original text in that milestone was:
"Quantum Delta NL shall have fully delivered on the first two phases of their plan, as submitted to the National Growth Fund."

The changed text was:
"Quantum Delta NL shall have fully delivered on the first two phases of their plan (excluding QCINed which is financed by DEP), as submitted to the National Growth Fund."

The Dutch government has informed the Dutch parliament that this amendment has the objective "to reduce the administrative burden of showing there is no double financing. This has been done by specifying which parts are financed by the RRF, and which by other European funds".

Article 19, point 3j of regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility, requires the European Commission to take into account "the arrangements that aim to avoid double funding from the Facility and other Union programmes" when it assesses recovery and resilience plans.

In that context, under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting all documents related to the Commission's assessment of the proposal by the Dutch government to amend milestone 36 of investment C2.1 I1-2 (Quantum Delta NL), including its assessment of how the Netherlands has avoided double funding of the Quantum Delta project, and any evidence the Netherlands has submitted to prove that there was no double funding.

This request is including but not limited to minutes, (hand-written) notes, audio recordings, (draft) reports, verbatim reports, operational conclusions, lines to take, briefings, papers, e-mails, text or chat messages, letters, interservice consultations, and presentations.

This request covers both any informal exchanges between the Netherlands and the European Commission about a potential amended milestone 36 before the formal submission of the amended RRP, and the official period of assessment between submission (16 September 2024) and publication of the proposal (4 October 2024).

If the Commission is considering to invoke the exception clause that publication would undermine the protection of “[…] the financial, monetary or economic policy” of the EU or of specific Member States, I would like remind you of the European Ombudsman decision, which said the "risk of those policies [i.e. the financial, monetary or economic policy of the Union or a Member State] being undermined must not, however, be merely hypothetical and a refusal to disclose documents must be appropriately reasoned".

I also would like to point out on 1 December 2022, the Ombudsman said: "The Ombudsman has urged the Commission to treat access to document requests concerning EU recovery funds with greater consistency and to better explain its reasoning if it decides not release the asked-for information. [..] She asked the Commission to take this into account when dealing with future access requests related to the recovery funds, noting the importance of the public being able to follow how the funds are being used and whether promised milestones have been met."

If the Commission is considering to invoke an exception from article 4.2 or 4.3, please keep in mind there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. That public interest is to ensure that no double funding with tax-payer money has taken place.

If the Commission is considering to deny access to (parts) of the document(s), I would request that the Commission at least provide a list of documents that match my request.

If the Netherlands has not submitted any evidence to prove that there was no double funding, I would appreciate it if the Commission could explicitly say so in its initial reply.

Only digital copies are required, please consider the environment by not sending me any physical mail.

I am of course available to clarify my request further if needed.

Sincerely
Peter Teffer

Follow the Money
Overtoom 197
1054HT Amsterdam
The Netherlands