Dear Human Resources and Security,

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:

Letter Roelie Post to VP Siim Kallas: 21 May 2007

Email from RP to Cabinet: 18 June 2007

Letter Cabinet Kallas to Roelie Post: 22 April 2008

And all other correspondance, internal notes etc etc

No need to respect the privacy of Mrs. Roelie Post.
You made her a whistleblower - in the public interest.

In the words of Catherine Day, former Secretary- General: The world should know about this.

Yours faithfully,

Against Child Trafficking (ACT)
Keizersgracht 482
1017EG Amsterdam

Dear Human Resources and Security,

Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.

I am filing the following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request 'Letter from Mrs. Roelie POST to Vice President Siim KALLAS'.

Ref.: EASE 2025/0904)

Dear Mr. Quest,

I am writing to submit a confirmatory application pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, requesting a review of the decision communicated by Mr. Stephen Quest, Director-General of Human Resources and Security, on 13 March 2025 (dated 28 March 2025, Eur. Ares(2025)2504918), refusing access to documents requested under reference EASE 2025/0904.

The initial request sought access to the following documents:
- Letter from Roelie Post to Vice-President Siim Kallas, dated 21 May 2007;
- Email from Roelie Post to Cabinet, dated 18 June 2007;
- Letter from Cabinet Kallas to Roelie Post, dated 22 April 2008; and
- All other correspondence, internal notes, etc., related to these exchanges.

The refusal is based on Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (Data Protection Regulation), asserting that confirming the existence of these documents and granting access would involve processing personal data, and that I have not demonstrated a specific public interest justifying disclosure. I respectfully challenge this position and submit that the refusal misapplies data protection rules, undermines transparency, and fails to consider the broader public interest at stake. Below, I outline the grounds for this confirmatory application.

1. Public Interest in Transparency Outweighs Privacy Concerns

The requested documents pertain to correspondence between Roelie Post, a former European Commission official, and Vice-President Siim Kallas’s Cabinet, which ultimately led to significant consequences for both Ms. Post and the public. Specifically, these exchanges resulted in Ms. Post’s secondment “in the interest of the service” and the subsequent creation of Against Child Trafficking (ACT). This arrangement, orchestrated by the European Commission—including Cabinet Kallas and former Director-General Irene Souka—left Ms. Post and ACT exposed to significant pressure and attacks from influential actors in the adoption lobby, without adequate institutional protection.

The handling of Ms. Post’s case raises serious questions about the European Commission’s internal processes for managing whistleblowers and protecting staff who expose irregularities. The public has a legitimate interest in understanding how the Commission addressed these matters, particularly given its role as a guardian of EU values and accountability. Disclosure of the requested documents is necessary to shed light on these processes and ensure democratic oversight, which constitutes a specific purpose in the public interest under Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

2. Ms. Post’s Status as a Public Figure Diminishes Privacy Claims

The assertion that disclosure would prejudice Ms. Post’s legitimate interests under the Data Protection Regulation does not hold in this context. Ms. Post is a public figure, having authored a widely publicized book about her experiences within the European Commission—a book written at the suggestion of former Secretary-General Catherine Day and pre-approved by former Vice-President Günter Verheugen. The publication and its aftermath thrust Ms. Post into the public domain, where her role as a whistleblower and advocate has been extensively documented and debated.

Given her public profile and the fact that the requested documents relate to her official interactions with the Commission—rather than purely private matters—invoking privacy appears to be an inappropriate barrier to transparency. The legitimate interests of Ms. Post are not prejudiced by disclosure; rather, withholding these documents risks shielding the Commission’s internal functioning from scrutiny, contrary to the principles of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

3. Misapplication of Data Protection Rules as a Barrier to Accountability

The blanket refusal to confirm even the existence of the requested documents suggests an overly broad interpretation of the Data Protection Regulation, which effectively obstructs access to information of significant public relevance. The Commission’s decision fails to balance the protection of personal data with the public’s right to transparency, as required under EU law. This approach risks setting a precedent whereby privacy rules are misused to avoid accountability, particularly in cases involving whistleblowers whose actions have broader societal implications.

In this instance, the documents are not sought for personal data per se, but to understand the Commission’s decision-making processes and their consequences. Any personal data contained therein could be redacted, allowing access to the substantive content without compromising legitimate privacy interests. The Commission has not explored such alternatives, further undermining the refusal’s proportionality.

Conclusion and Request

In light of the above, I urge the Secretariat-General to review the initial decision and grant access to the requested documents. The public interest in transparency regarding the Commission’s treatment of whistleblowers, combined with Ms. Post’s status as a public figure and the disproportionate application of privacy rules, justifies disclosure. Should full access raise specific concerns, I am open to receiving redacted versions of the documents to address any residual privacy issues while fulfilling the transparency obligation.

I trust that this confirmatory application will be processed within the 15 working days stipulated under Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the address or email provided above should you require further clarification.

Yours sincerely,

Arun Dohle
Against Child Trafficking (ACT)

A full history of my request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.asktheeu.org/request/letter_...

Hereby I hand in again the confirmatory appeal, requesting this to be forwarded to Transparency, Document Management & Access to Documents (SG.C.1)

I am filing the following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request 'Letter from Mrs. Roelie POST to Vice President Siim KALLAS'.

Ref.: EASE 2025/0904)

Dear Ms. Juhansone,

I am writing to submit a confirmatory application pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, requesting a review of the decision communicated by Mr. Stephen Quest, Director-General of Human Resources and Security, on 13 March 2025 (dated 28 March 2025, Eur. Ares(2025)2504918), refusing access to documents requested under reference EASE 2025/0904.

The initial request sought access to the following documents:
- Letter from Roelie Post to Vice-President Siim Kallas, dated 21 May 2007;
- Email from Roelie Post to Cabinet, dated 18 June 2007;
- Letter from Cabinet Kallas to Roelie Post, dated 22 April 2008; and
- All other correspondence, internal notes, etc., related to these exchanges.

The refusal is based on Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (Data Protection Regulation), asserting that confirming the existence of these documents and granting access would involve processing personal data, and that I have not demonstrated a specific public interest justifying disclosure. I respectfully challenge this position and submit that the refusal misapplies data protection rules, undermines transparency, and fails to consider the broader public interest at stake. Below, I outline the grounds for this confirmatory application.

1. Public Interest in Transparency Outweighs Privacy Concerns

The requested documents pertain to correspondence between Roelie Post, a former European Commission official, and Vice-President Siim Kallas’s Cabinet, which ultimately led to significant consequences for both Ms. Post and the public. Specifically, these exchanges resulted in Ms. Post’s secondment “in the interest of the service” and the subsequent creation of Against Child Trafficking (ACT). This arrangement, orchestrated by the European Commission—including Cabinet Kallas and former Director-General Irene Souka—left Ms. Post and ACT exposed to significant pressure and attacks from influential actors in the adoption lobby, without adequate institutional protection.

The handling of Ms. Post’s case raises serious questions about the European Commission’s internal processes for managing whistleblowers and protecting staff who expose irregularities. The public has a legitimate interest in understanding how the Commission addressed these matters, particularly given its role as a guardian of EU values and accountability. Disclosure of the requested documents is necessary to shed light on these processes and ensure democratic oversight, which constitutes a specific purpose in the public interest under Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

2. Ms. Post’s Status as a Public Figure Diminishes Privacy Claims

The assertion that disclosure would prejudice Ms. Post’s legitimate interests under the Data Protection Regulation does not hold in this context. Ms. Post is a public figure, having authored a widely publicized book about her experiences within the European Commission—a book written at the suggestion of former Secretary-General Catherine Day and pre-approved by former Vice-President Günter Verheugen. The publication and its aftermath thrust Ms. Post into the public domain, where her role as a whistleblower and advocate has been extensively documented and debated.

Given her public profile and the fact that the requested documents relate to her official interactions with the Commission—rather than purely private matters—invoking privacy appears to be an inappropriate barrier to transparency. The legitimate interests of Ms. Post are not prejudiced by disclosure; rather, withholding these documents risks shielding the Commission’s internal functioning from scrutiny, contrary to the principles of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

3. Misapplication of Data Protection Rules as a Barrier to Accountability

The blanket refusal to confirm even the existence of the requested documents suggests an overly broad interpretation of the Data Protection Regulation, which effectively obstructs access to information of significant public relevance. The Commission’s decision fails to balance the protection of personal data with the public’s right to transparency, as required under EU law. This approach risks setting a precedent whereby privacy rules are misused to avoid accountability, particularly in cases involving whistleblowers whose actions have broader societal implications.

In this instance, the documents are not sought for personal data per se, but to understand the Commission’s decision-making processes and their consequences. Any personal data contained therein could be redacted, allowing access to the substantive content without compromising legitimate privacy interests. The Commission has not explored such alternatives, further undermining the refusal’s proportionality.

Conclusion and Request

In light of the above, I urge the Secretariat-General to review the initial decision and grant access to the requested documents. The public interest in transparency regarding the Commission’s treatment of whistleblowers, combined with Ms. Post’s status as a public figure and the disproportionate application of privacy rules, justifies disclosure. Should full access raise specific concerns, I am open to receiving redacted versions of the documents to address any residual privacy issues while fulfilling the transparency obligation.

I trust that this confirmatory application will be processed within the 15 working days stipulated under Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the address or email provided above should you require further clarification.

Yours sincerely,

Arun Dohle
Against Child Trafficking (ACT)

Dear [email address],

Please forward to the Access to Documents unit of the General Secretariat.

We have not received a reply to the Confirmatory Appeal, nor an acknowledgement of receipt.

Please get back to us without delay.
Failing which we will hand in a complaint with the European Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely,

Against Child Trafficking
Arun Dohle