Dear Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs,

the Commission has announced in the annex to its work programme 2025, published 11 February 2025, under point 17, in regard to the planned regulation on standard essential patents, that it "will assess whether another proposal should be tabled or another
type of approach should be chosen". This means that any legislative work on the regulation is suspended, and the regulation effectively withdrawn.

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I wish to request all documents regarding this decision to re-assess the Standard Essential Patents Regulation. This is meant to include any internal exchanges of the Commission, such as e-mails or memos between or within Directorate-Generals, or exchanges with other governments or outside stakeholders.

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue Auguste Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles

Dear Ms Jorna, dear DG Grow,

I wish to make a confirmatory application in regard to my request “Exchanges regarding Standard Essential Patents Regulation”, 2025/0869.

My request was denied based on the exception in Article 4(3), even though the reply I received does not specify whether that is meant to refer to article Article 4(3) first indent or second indent.

First, I note that it is customary to provide a list of documents falling under the scope of the request, and providing specific arguments for each of them. That has not happened in this case, and I ask to provide such a list.

Second, I note that the argument for withholding access was very general and clearly hypothetical, therefore not meeting the threshold for non-disclosure set in case law. For instance, the reply I received states: “Transparency mechanisms will ensure that relevant information is available once the process is concluded, making premature disclosure unnecessary and potentially misleading.” This statement clearly implies the hypothetical nature of the ground of refusal, as the Commission states that disclosure is “potentially” misleading - this is purely speculative. Therefore, the exception is clearly misapplied.

Third, the Commission appears to argue that, as the “withdrawal of the initiative is still under review”, no disclosure can be made. I argue that this goes against the spirit and letter of Regulation 1049/2001. Regulation 1049 clearly states that wider access should be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity. This is the case here.

Fourth, I argue for an overriding public interest in disclosure. The Commission has moved to withdraw a legislative initiative against the will of its co-legislators. The public has a right to know what has informed the Commission to act in such a manner, and how specifically this decision was taken within the institution. For instance, it is of great importance to understand whether the president personally, or her cabinet, had any hand in deciding the matter. Should the Commission fail to disclose key information, this would undermine public trust and give rise to the perception that undue influence was taken by certain stakeholders and pressure groups.

Kind regards,
Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue Auguste Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles