Dear Trade,

As you may be aware, Australia's eVisitor system, which was previously used to facilitate visa-free travel for nationals of certain EU member states, has undergone significant changes contrary to the provisions of the Visa Reciprocity Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2018/1806).

The European Union has launched negotiations for a comprehensive and ambitious trade agreement with Australia. The trade negotiations aim to remove barriers and help EU firms – especially smaller ones – to export more, put European companies exporting to or doing business in Australia on an equal footing and allow EU companies to better participate in government procurement in Australia.

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:

-Any reports or assessments prepared by DG TRADE regarding the implications of Australia’s visa barrier against EU citizens on EU trade relations, economic cooperation, competitiveness or overall bilateral relations, and whether this could affect trade agreements or negotiations.
-Any correspondence, memos or records of communications between DG TRADE and Australian officials discussing the visa system, as part of the EU-Australia trade agreement or otherwise
-Any steps taken, planned or proposed by DG TRADE in response to the Australia’s visa system

Yours faithfully,
Petru Popescu

Dear Directorate-General for Trade - Access to Documents team,

Thank you for your email and clarification regarding my request for access to documents under case number 2025/0088.

According to Regulation 1049/2001 the applicant simply has to make a written request in any form, including electronic form. There is no further requirement to give any personal details nor to state reasons for the request. Article 6.1 of the Regulation says "Applications for access to a document shall be made in any written form, including electronic form, in one of the languages referred to in Article 314 of the EC Treaty and in a sufficiently precise manner to enable the institution to identify the document. The applicant is not obliged to state reasons for the application.

You referenced Article 297 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to justify the need for a postal address for notification purposes. However, modern communication methods, such as email, provide reliable and verifiable means of correspondence. The European Commission web services operate without requiring a postal address, indicating that electronic communication is deemed sufficient for all purposes in this context. The eIDAS Regulation (910/2014) establishes that electronic communications have equivalent legal effect to postal mail. A timestamped email delivery can provide the same legal certainty.

The Ombudsman (Decision in case 682/2014/JF on the European Commission’s requirement that persons who ask for public access to documents provide their postal address - https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decis...) concluded that such practice was "disrespectful of citizens and their fundamental rights under the EU Charter" and constituted "maladministration." The Ombudsman described the Commission's approach as "archaic for the 21st century" and contradictory to its own advice to embrace digital communication. Furthermore, in June 2018, the Ombudsman issued a decision in case 10/2018/AP, criticizing the Commission's refusal to register a request for public access to documents because the applicant had not provided a postal address. The Ombudsman found that this requirement was unnecessary and could impede the right of public access to documents (Decision in case 10/2018/AP on the European Commission’s refusal to register the complainant’s request for public access to documents on the grounds that he had not provided a postal address -https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decis...).

Regarding the application of the Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the determination of an applicant's residency status can be achieved through less intrusive means than requiring a postal address. The GDPR and Regulation 2018/1725 do not mandate collection of postal addresses. In fact, the GDPR emphasizes data minimization, collecting only necessary personal data. Is a postal address strictly necessary in this case, considering the request is made online and documents can be delivered electronically? This raises concerns about unnecessary collection of personal data and violation of rights under GDPR. For instance, a simple declaration of EU citizenship or residency could suffice to apply the appropriate data protection rules. This approach would align with the principles of data minimization and necessity under the Regulation. I hereby declare that I am an EU citizen with residency in Bucharest, Romania.

Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 concerns the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual within the documents being requested. It is an exception to the right of access, not a justification for demanding personal data from the applicant. The application of this exception is determined by the content of the documents, not the applicant's location. Your invocation of this Article is therefore irrelevant to the requirement of a postal address.

Your concern about potential abuse and evasion of Article 6(3) through multiple requests under different identities is understandable. However, demanding a postal address is not an effective or proportionate measure to address this concern. The Ryanair judgment you cited (EU:T:2010:511) dealt with an attempt to circumvent the rules by artificially splitting a single request. It did not establish a postal address as a mandatory requirement to prevent such abuse. I assure you that my request is genuine and made in good faith. If you have specific concerns regarding potential abuse in my case, I am open to discussing them and providing further information if necessary and proportionate.

Furthermore, EU strategic documents such as the EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020 promote the principle of "digital by default, encouraging public administrations to prioritize electronic communication and service delivery. The 2017 Ministerial Declaration on eGovernment - the Tallinn Declaration states that "for the principles of digital-by-default, inclusiveness and accessibility, we will: ensure that European citizens and businesses may interact digitally with public administration, if they choose to do so and whenever feasible and appropriate from a cost-benefit and user-centricity perspective". The Decision (EU) 2022/2481 on establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030 states that the target for the digitialisation of public services is to achieve that "there is 100 % online accessible provision of key public services and, where relevant, it is possible for citizens and businesses in the Union to interact online with public administrations".

Finally, the European Accessibility Act (Directive (EU) 2019/882) aims to make public sector websites and mobile applications accessible, which includes ensuring that online services are usable by people with disabilities. Requiring a physical address as a mandatory element for accessing information online is a barrier to those who primarily interact with public services digitally.

More broadly, The EU acquis emphasizes the principle of proportionality, meaning measures taken must be necessary and proportionate to achieve their aim. Requesting a postal address in addition to electronic contact information for a process entirely manageable online seems disproportionate. This adds an unnecessary hurdle to citizens exercising their right of access to documents, particularly in the digital age where communication and document exchange are predominantly electronic.

To conclude, your insistence on a postal address is not justified by the legislation you have cited, especially given that I submitted my request via electronic communication that can be a valid means of communication according to Regulation 1049/2001. Demanding a postal address is overly burdensome, disproportionate and contrary to the principle of transparency and openness that Regulation 1049/2001 seeks to promote. This creates an unnecessary barrier to access to documents and potentially discriminates against individuals who may not wish to disclose their home address or have disability that prevents them from accessing printed materials.

In light of the above points, I respectfully request that you reconsider the necessity of requiring my postal address to process my request. The principles of transparency and openness, as enshrined in Regulation 1049/2001, advocate for facilitating, not hindering, public access to documents. Imposing additional requirements not explicitly stated in the Regulation would restrict this fundamental right. Modern digital communication methods, legal frameworks and principles of proportionality strongly support the sufficiency of electronic correspondence for such processes. Requiring additional, unnecessary information imposes a barrier that is not only impractical but also inconsistent with EU values and strategic priorities for digital accessibility and citizen engagement.

I trust that you will take this opportunity to align your practices with the principles of transparency, efficiency and inclusivity that underpin the EU acquis. I kindly ask for your confirmation that my request will be processed without further delay or unnecessary procedural requirements. The 15-working-day period should begin from the original date of registration.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours faithfully,

Petru Popescu

Dear TRADE ACCES DOCUMENTS,

Thank you for your response. While I maintain my position that requiring a postal address for the processing of my request under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is unnecessary and disproportionate, I do not wish to delay the handling of my request.

Accordingly, please find below the postal address you have requested: Strada Dristorului 63, București 031534, Romania.

However, I reserve the right to seek the opinion of the European Ombudsman on this matter, as I believe this requirement is inconsistent with principles of transparency, proportionality and good administration under EU law and strategic documents pertaining to digitalization.

Yours sincerely,

Petru Popescu