Dear Communications Networks, Content and Technology,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting all documents connected to a meeting between Commissioner Thierry Breton, his cabinet and representatives of Starlink on 12/10/2022. This is meant to include meeting minutes, briefing notes, e-mails, etc.

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue Auguste Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles

Dear Communications Networks, Content and Technology,

I meant SpaceX, rather than Starlink. Thank you for noting the clarification. Please transfer request as appropriate.

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Fanta

Dear Secretariat-General,
I am writing to submit a confirmatory application in response to the decision of the Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS) concerning my access request (Ref: EASE 2024/3647).

I ask the Commission to carry out a renewed search for additional documents related to the meeting. The meeting report I received contains all but two terse sentences, and I wonder whether this really satisfies the Commission’s own criteria for keeping a proper record of high-level meetings with stakeholders, especially considering the lengthy briefing note that preceded it. Furthermore, I wonder whether further written exchanges exist in regard to arranging the meeting, such as e-mails or letters.

In the decision, DG DEFIS denied full access to certain parts of Document 1 (Mini Briefing Note - Meeting between Commissioner Breton and Ms. Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX, 12/10/2022), citing the protection of public security under Article 4(1)(a) and commercial interests under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

I respectfully contest the decision based on the following grounds:

1. Misapplication of the Public Security Exception

DG DEFIS applied Article 4(1)(a), arguing that disclosure of parts of Document 1 could undermine the public interest in public security by revealing information that could affect the EU's strategic orientations and space missions. However, this application appears overly broad and lacks sufficient justification for the specific redactions made.

Firstly, Article 4(1)(a) is intended to protect public security from genuine threats, and the assessment of such threats should be specific and demonstrable. In the present case, DG DEFIS provides only general claims about possible risks related to third countries drawing conclusions about Member States' capabilities in space. The alleged risks remain hypothetical and speculative, with no concrete demonstration of how the specific redacted information directly impacts public security.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has repeatedly emphasized that exceptions to transparency, particularly under Article 4(1)(a), should be interpreted and applied narrowly. In this case, no clear causal link has been established between the release of the requested information and any realistic threat to public security.

2. Misapplication of the Commercial Interest Exception

DG DEFIS also invoked Article 4(2) to redact certain sections of Document 1, arguing that full disclosure would undermine SpaceX’s commercial interests by revealing sensitive information related to pricing and commercial operations. This argument appears flawed for several reasons:

Nature of Information: Given the public nature of SpaceX’s projects and its contracts with numerous governments, much of the information in question is likely already available in the public domain, particularly regarding its strategic projects and commercial approaches. Thus, the redaction of general commercial information, which SpaceX has voluntarily shared in a meeting with a public official, seems disproportionate.

Commercial Sensitivity: The redacted sections do not necessarily contain highly sensitive or proprietary details, such as trade secrets or unpublished financial data. Without a clear explanation from the Commission as to why this information constitutes commercial secrets, the application of Article 4(2) appears to lack the required specificity.

3. Misapplication of privacy exception

At the end of the briefing note, there is a brief CV of Gwynne Shotwell, evident from the fact that it says [redacted] “is SpaceX’s president and COO”. I find redactions of Ms. Shotwell’s name and her biographical information under the exception for privacy are patently unfounded, as it is well clear who this section refers to and any biographical information is likely gleaned from public sources. I therefore ask for Shotwell’s name and biographical information to be de-redacted.

4. Overriding Public Interest in Disclosure

Even if DG DEFIS’s reliance on Article 4(2) regarding commercial interests were valid, there is a compelling overriding public interest in favour of disclosure. Regulation 1049/2001 provides that access should be granted if an overriding public interest can be demonstrated, and I submit that this threshold is met for several reasons:

Control of EU spending: During the period in which the meeting with SpaceX in question took place, Germany was reading itself to finance the use of Starlink in Ukraine, even though doubts about the service persisted. (See public statements by the German government and reporting by Follow the Money: https://www.ftm.eu/articles/elon-musk-st...) During the same time, the EEAS was considering footing the bill for Starlink coverage in Ukraine, according to a report in the Financial Times published just days after the meeting between Commissioner Breton and SpaceX took place. (See: https://www.ft.com/content/73a4b1b8-b266...). Given the context of the meeting, I find it important to understand whether the discussion that took place concerned Starlink deployment in Ukraine and possible financial involvement by the European Union, as I consider this a necessary requirement of financial accountability to understand if and why EU money is used.

Redactions of “standards” section in the briefing note: I would like to take issue with the redaction of the “standards” section in the briefing note, which I take to have happened under the commercial interests exception. If the Commission has any objections or considerations in regard to the manner in which a commercial company applies technical standards related to European law, such as the Radio Equipment Directive, this should not be considered as falling under commercial interest. Whether a company complies with the law (or a technical standard) is not a matter of choice, and therefore not legitimately a matter of commercial confidentiality, such as a patent or pricing pattern would be, but an obligation. Non-compliance is likely to have severe ramifications for users of the technology and competitors, therefore any consideration in regard to a possible breach of legal norms or technical standards should be considered as vital public information. I therefore consider there to be an overriding public interest in disclosure.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the European Commission reconsider the partial refusal of access to Document 1. The assertions of public security threats and commercial confidentiality are insufficiently substantiated, and there is a clear public interest in disclosure of the requested documents.

I trust that this confirmatory application will be taken into full consideration, and I look forward to a timely and transparent reassessment of my request.

Yours sincerely,

Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue Auguste Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles