Dear Transparency Unit,

Thank you for your reply. Please do consider my response from July 13 as a call to reconsider the withholding letters (3) and (9). When will you come back with a decision?

Very best,

The information contained in this message is likely to be confidential and is intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the addressee you must not take any action in reliance on the content of this mail. Please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this message.

Dear Mr Smith-Meyer,

 

Many thanks for getting in touch with the Transparency Unit. We appreciate your interest in Parliament's work, and we understand that you are disappointed that Parliament could not grant public access to all documents identified under 2023-2822, for the reasons given in the response you received.

 

Please allow us to highlight that applications for public access must always be assessed from a point of view of whether or not access can be granted to the public at large, rather than any individual in particular.

 

If you disagree with Parliament's decision and believe that further access should have been granted, for example because you consider that Parliament has not applied the exceptions to disclosure under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 correctly, you may, as explained in the response you have received, submit a confirmatory application, asking Parliament to reconsider its decision.

 

Please let us know, if, by your message below, you intend to submit a confirmatory application.

 

Kind regards,

 

TRANSPARANCY UNIT European Parliament Directorate-General for the Presidency Directorate for Interinstitutional Affairs and Legislative Coordination [European Parliament request email] www.europarl.europa.eu

 

 

 

Dear Alessandro Chiocchetti,

 

Thank you for your letter dated July 3 that arrived at POLITICO’s premises. I appreciate that you listed and described the nine documents that are relevant to my freedom of information request from late May.

 

I note the reservations stated in regard to documents (3) and (9). As you can imagine, I’d like to request access to those two documents as well, as part of a journalistic investigation by POLITICO that touches on the Parliament inquiry in 2017.

 

I authored the original article that led to the inquiry, as well as the sequential coverage surrounding the MEP in question and his relationship with a Dutch businessman.

 

The MEP’s defense and the Advisory Committee’s final recommendations to the Parliament president at the time are key to understanding the institution’s processes when it comes to tackling allegations of conflict of interest.

 

These processes are even more relevant today, as the Parliament considers how best to reform itself in light of the Qatargate scandal. I hope you will appreciate my request as a journalist and as part of the Parliament’s continued dedication to transparency.

 

I remain at your deposal should you like to speak further about this, in person or on the phone, which you can contact through the number below. I look forward to hearing back from you.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

The information contained in this message is likely to be confidential and is intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the addressee you must not take any action in reliance on the content of this mail. Please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this message.