Dear Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs,

Pursuant to Articles 2(1) and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents, I hereby request access to all documents within the meaning of Article 3 of that Regulation regarding meetings in 2012 and 2013 with MARCOGAZ, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), and representatives of the Dutch government concerning benzene in natural gas.

The requested information concerns the presence and potential release of benzene - a substance of very high concern - into the environment through the distribution and combustion of natural gas. Therefore Article 2(1)(d) and Article 6(1) of Regulation 1367/2006 apply and exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 have to be interpreted in a restrictive way. Furthermore, since the information concerns emissions data within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Regulation 1367/2006, an overriding public interest in disclosure is deemed to exist regarding Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001. Also please note I am a professional journalist and disclosure is therefore a matter of public interest.

Any application of Article 4 exceptions must be based on a specific and individual assessment of each document, and partial access should be granted wherever possible in accordance with Article 4(6). As follows from Access Info Europe v Commission (T-851/16), it is up to the Commission to show why disclosure of every specific redacted document would constitute a reasonably foreseeable and non-hypothetical risk to the protected interest.

Publicly available information indicates that such documents exist. In particular, MARCOGAZ stated in a press release dated 23 April 2013: "Following questions raised by The Netherlands about the presence of benzene in natural gas, the European Commission (DG Enterprise) contacted MARCOGAZ. A meeting was organised between a representative of DG Enterprise and MARCOGAZ Working Group Gas Quality/Biogas on 5th November 2012, during which a general picture about this topic was presented. Following this meeting and further contacts between the Commission and ECHA (European Chemicals Agency), MARCOGAZ received further questions from ECHA." Furthermore, a scientific publication was published in Environmental Research in March 2026 regarding benzene leakages from residential stoves (DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ae499f).

Should you encounter any difficulties in interpreting or processing my request, I am ready to discuss ways to clarify or amend it to keep the effort required on your part to the necessary minimum in line with Article 6(2) and Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001.

Please send me an acknowledgement of receipt for this request, as foreseen by Article 7(1) of that Regulation. I also request that you provide a list of all documents falling within the scope of this request, including those to which access is refused (in full or in part).

Please note I prefer to receive the documents in digital format, not by physical mail, pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation 1049/2001. I also kindly request you make digital files searchable using OCR.

Yours sincerely,

Jan Daalder

Follow the Money
Overtoom 197-1
1054HT Amsterdam
Netherlands

Dear [email address],

Thank you for your message concerning my request for access to documents, registered under reference number EASE 2026/2092.

As you state in your message, the extended 15-working-day deadline expires today. You also state that the Commission is unable to provide a response within that deadline. No detailed reasons are given.

I must point out that this is not in line with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in particular Article 7(1) and Article 7(3). The Regulation requires the institution to respond within the applicable deadline. That deadline may be extended once, by a further 15 working days, only in exceptional cases and provided that detailed reasons are given.

In this case, when the deadline was extended, the Commission did not provide detailed reasons for the extension. Nor does the Commission now provide detailed reasons for failing to respond within the extended deadline. In any event, the Regulation does not provide for a further informal extension after the expiry of the extended deadline.

Under Article 7(4), failure by the institution to reply within the prescribed time-limit entitles the applicant to make a confirmatory application.

In the spirit of constructive cooperation, I am prepared to await the Commission’s substantive response for a short additional period. However, this should not be understood as accepting that the Commission’s handling of the request is compliant with Regulation 1049/2001, nor as waiving any of my rights under that Regulation.

I am only prepared to proceed on this informal basis if the Commission provides a concrete timeline for its substantive decision. I therefore ask you to inform me, no later than Wednesday 10 June 2026, of the specific date by which the Commission will provide its response.

For the avoidance of doubt, I reserve the right to make a confirmatory application under Article 7(4) at any time, including if no concrete timeline is provided or if the timeline provided is not respected.

Yours faithfully,

Jan Daalder

Dear [email address],

Thank you for your explanation that the requested documents are old and may be archived in closed folders and databases. I understand that this may create practical difficulties.

As I said, I am prepared to allow a short additional period. However, I can only do so on the basis of a clear and specific date. “Some more days” is not a concrete timeline.

I therefore ask the Commission to confirm, by close of business on Wednesday 10 June 2026, the specific date by which it can provide its substantive response to my request.

For the avoidance of doubt, I reserve the right to make a confirmatory application under Article 7(4) at any time, including if no concrete date is provided or if the date provided is not respected.

Yours faithfully,

Jan Daalder

Dear [email address],

Thank you for your message concerning my request for access to documents, registered under reference number EASE 2026/2092.

I hereby agree to wait until Friday 12 June 2026, close of business, for the Commission to confirm the specific date by which it will provide its substantive response to my request.

This agreement is without prejudice to my position that the statutory deadline under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has already expired, and without prejudice to my right to make a confirmatory application under Article 7(4) at any time.

Yours faithfully,

Jan Daalder

Dear [email address],

Thank you for your message concerning my request for access to documents, registered under reference number EASE 2026/2092.

However, the phrase “most likely reasonable time” does not constitute a clear commitment. For the avoidance of doubt, I expect to receive the substantive response no later than close of business on 30 June 2026, unless the Commission commits to a clear and specific alternative date.

Yours faithfully,

Jan Daalder

Dear Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs ([email address]),

Concerning my request for access to Commission documents registered under case number EASE 2026/2092, originally submitted on 20 April 2026, I hereby submit a confirmatory application pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Please forward this application to the Secretariat-General for review.

I. Procedural History

20 April 2026 - Initial request submitted.
21 April 2026 - The Commission registered the request and stated that the initial deadline would expire on 13 May 2026.
12 May 2026 - The Commission extended the deadline under Article 7(3) by 15 working days, to 6 June 2026.
13 May 2026 - The initial 15 working day deadline expired.
6 June 2026 - The extended deadline under Article 7(3) expired.
8 June 2026 - The Commission stated that it was unable to provide a response within the time limit and said it would reply "as quickly as possible".
8 June 2026 - I stated that a further extension was not in line with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in particular Article 7(1) and Article 7(3). In the spirit of constructive cooperation, I nevertheless agreed to a short additional extension, on the condition that the Commission provide a specific timeline by 10 June.
8 June 2026 - The Commission explained that it was facing difficulties because the documents are old and "archived in closed folders and databases". The Commission asked for "some more days" to provide me with a new deadline for the reply.
8 June 2026 - I replied that "some more days" is not a concrete timeline and asked the Commission to confirm, by close of business on Wednesday 10 June 2026, the specific date by which it would provide its substantive response.
8 June 2026 - The Commission asked whether it could let me know the concrete timeline for a substantive response by Friday 12 June 2026, close of business.
8 June 2026 - I agreed to wait until Friday 12 June 2026, without prejudice to my position that the statutory deadline had already expired and to my right to make a confirmatory application.
12 June 2026 - The Commission stated that it planned to prepare a response by 22 June 2026 and that the "most likely reasonable time" for sending the response was 30 June 2026.
16 June 2026 - I replied that the phrase "most likely reasonable time" did not constitute a clear commitment and stated that I expected the substantive response no later than close of business on 30 June 2026 unless the Commission committed to a clear and specific alternative date.
30 June 2026 - The Commission's informal target date passed without a substantive response.

The Commission did not reply to my 16 June message and no initial decision has been adopted as of 3 July 2026.

II. Grounds for Confirmatory Application

Article 7(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides for a 15 working day deadline, extendable once under Article 7(3). The maximum statutory time limits expired on 6 June 2026. Regulation 1049/2001 does not provide for any further extension beyond that point.

The agreement to informally extend to 30 June did not create a new legal deadline and did not suspend the statutory time limit.

Under Article 7(4), failure by the institution to reply within the prescribed time-limit entitles the applicant to make a confirmatory application. That is the situation here.

III. Request

I therefore request that the Commission:

1. Confirm receipt of this confirmatory application.

2. Conduct a full review pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation 1049/2001.

3. If the Commission decides to extend this deadline pursuant to Article 8(2), substantively explain why this concerns an "exceptional case" and provide detailed reasons for the extension.

4. Adopt a formal confirmatory decision within the time limits laid down in Article 8.

5. If access is refused in full or in part, provide legally sufficient reasons in accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 296 TFEU. As the General Court held in Access Info Europe v Commission (T-851/16), those reasons must be specific and individual to the requested records or documents and must show a reasonably foreseeable and non-hypothetical risk to the protected interest.

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

Yours faithfully,

Jan Daalder
Follow the Money
Overtoom 197-1
1054HT Amsterdam
Netherlands

Dear Secretariat-General,

Concerning my request for access to Commission documents registered under case number EASE 2026/2092, originally submitted on 20 April 2026, I hereby submit a confirmatory application under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 against the Commission’s initial decision of 14 July 2026, insofar as that decision granted only partial access to one document.

For the avoidance of doubt, I also hereby withdraw my confirmatory application of 3 July 2026, which was submitted following the Commission’s failure to respond within the statutory time limit.

I request that the Secretariat-General conduct a full review of the initial decision of 14 July 2026.

I. Background

My initial request sought all documents within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding meetings in 2012 and 2013 with MARCOGAZ, ECHA, RIVM, and representatives of the Dutch government concerning benzene in natural gas.

In that request, I drew attention to publicly available information indicating that multiple documents should exist. In particular, I quoted a MARCOGAZ press release dated 23 April 2013 stating that, after questions raised by the Netherlands about benzene in natural gas, the European Commission contacted MARCOGAZ, that a meeting was organised on 5 November 2012 between a representative of DG Enterprise and MARCOGAZ Working Group Gas Quality/Biogas, and that, following that meeting and further contacts between the Commission and ECHA, MARCOGAZ received further questions from ECHA.

However, in its decision of 14 July 2026, the Commission stated that it had identified only one document falling within the scope of the request: "Exchange of email between the Commission and Marcogaz". It further stated that parts of that document were redacted because they were allegedly outside the scope of the request and because some parts contained personal data protected under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001.

The partially disclosed document is an email dated 25 September 2012 concerning benzene in natural gas. On its face, the disclosed record appears to be part of a wider email chain. At least one later reply in that chain has been fully redacted.

II. Grounds for Confirmatory Review

1. The decision does not give a sufficient explanation for the identification of only one responsive document

The Commission stated that it identified only one document falling within the scope of the request. In the circumstances of this case, that conclusion requires a fuller explanation at confirmatory stage.

My initial request identified a specific public MARCOGAZ statement dated 23 April 2013, which stated that the Commission contacted MARCOGAZ concerning benzene in natural gas, that a meeting was organised on 5 November 2012 between DG Enterprise and the MARCOGAZ Working Group Gas Quality/Biogas, and that further contacts took place between the Commission and ECHA, following which MARCOGAZ received further questions from ECHA.

The document partially disclosed by the Commission confirms that the public statement was not an abstract or unsupported lead: the Commission did in fact identify an email exchange with MARCOGAZ concerning benzene. The released version also appears, on its face, to be part of a wider email chain, with at least one additional message in the chain withheld or blanked out in full.

Taken together, these elements constitute relevant and consistent indications that the matter was not limited to a single isolated email. They point to a defined sequence of Commission activity: contact with MARCOGAZ, a meeting, further Commission-ECHA contacts, and follow-up questions. They also raise a concrete question as to whether the search covered all likely repositories and categories of records, including archived DG Enterprise/DG GROW files, meeting records, attachments, internal correspondence, Commission-ECHA exchanges, correspondence with the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), and representatives of the Dutch government, and the complete email chain from which the disclosed message was taken.

I recognise that Regulation 1049/2001 does not require the Commission to create documents that do not exist, and that an institution's statement that it does not hold further documents benefits from a presumption of veracity. However, that presumption is rebuttable. As the General Court held in Stevi and The New York Times v Commission (T-36/23), where relevant and consistent evidence calls into question an institution's statement of non-possession, the institution must provide plausible explanations enabling the applicant and any reviewing body to understand why the documents could not be found. The Court further held that, in the absence of a precise explanation of how the requested documents were sought, the institution fails in its duty to provide plausible explanations for non-possession of documents which existed or were supposed to have existed in the past. That case follows the same principle set out in Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union (T-433/17).

The initial decision does not provide such an explanation. It does not state which repositories, mailboxes, archives, closed files, databases, or services were searched. It does not explain whether searches were carried out in DG Enterprise/DG GROW files from 2012 and 2013, whether related correspondence was checked, whether meeting records for 5 November 2012 were searched, whether attachments and Ares/e-Domec records were reviewed, or whether the complete email chain containing the disclosed 25 September 2012 message was assessed.

The Secretariat-General should verify the adequacy of the search and, if no further records are identified, provide a plausible and concrete explanation of the searches carried out and of why no further responsive documents are held.

2. The decision does not specify which legal basis applies to which redaction

The decision states that parts of the document were redacted because the content was allegedly outside the scope of the request, and that some parts contained personal data protected under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001. However, the Commission did not specify which legal basis applies to which redaction.

That omission prevents meaningful review of the partial refusal. Article 7(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 requires the institution to state the reasons for a total or partial refusal, and Article 296 TFEU requires legally sufficient reasons. In my initial request, I specifically recalled that any application of Article 4 exceptions must be based on a specific and individual assessment of each document and that partial access should be granted wherever possible in accordance with Article 4(6). As the General Court made clear in Access Info Europe v Commission (T-851/16), the reasons given for refusing access must be specific and individual to the requested records.

In particular, it is unclear to me whether the full redaction of the later reply email was made because the Commission considered that content to be outside the scope of my request, or because it relied on Article 4(1)(b). The Commission should therefore specify, document by document and passage by passage as necessary, which legal basis applies to each redaction maintained.

3. On either basis, the redactions to the later reply email require reassessment

If the Commission maintains that the later reply email was withheld because it falls outside the scope of my request, it should explain why a reply in the same benzene-related exchange falls outside a request concerning meetings and contacts with MARCOGAZ, ECHA, RIVM, and Dutch authorities about benzene in natural gas. The visible portion of the released document concerns exactly that subject matter. In those circumstances, a bare assertion that other parts of the same exchange are "out of scope" does not suffice.

Alternatively, the Commission may have relied on Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 to redact the entire reply. Article 4(1)(b) does not justify withholding non-personal substantive content that can be disclosed after anonymisation, and the decision gives no basis to conclude that the entire reply consists only of personal identifiers. To the extent Article 4(1)(b) was relied upon for any redaction beyond personal identifiers, the Commission should reassess the document and disclose all meaningful substantive content that can be released once those identifiers are removed.

III. Request

I therefore request that the Secretariat-General:

1. annul the initial position in part and conduct a full confirmatory review;

2. verify the adequacy of the search for responsive records and, where necessary, conduct additional searches, including for records relating to the 5 November 2012 meeting, the further contacts between the Commission and ECHA referred to in the MARCOGAZ statement cited in my initial request, any records within the original scope concerning RIVM or representatives of the Dutch government in relation to the same benzene-in-natural-gas issue, and any additional documents related to the 25 September 2012 email;

3. identify and assess all responsive records or parts of records, including the later reply apparently forming part of the disclosed 25 September 2012 exchange;

4. specify which legal basis applies to each redaction maintained;

5. if any redaction is maintained as outside scope, explain document by document and passage by passage why that material falls outside the request;

6. if Article 4(1)(b) is relied upon, disclose all non-personal substantive content after redacting only those identifiers whose protection is genuinely necessary; and

7. if access is still refused in whole or in part, provide document-specific and passage-specific reasons sufficient to permit meaningful review under Regulation 1049/2001.

Yours faithfully,

Jan Daalder

Follow the Money
Overtoom 197-1
1054HT Amsterdam
Netherlands