Dear Foreign Policy Instruments,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I wish to request two e-mails regarding discussions with the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change in February 2025. The two e-mails dated 4 February 2025 and 12 February 2024 carry the subject line "Mine Action Architecture". They have been partially disclosed through an access to documents request last year and can be found here:
https://www.asktheeu.org/request/fpi_mee...
https://www.asktheeu.org/request/fpi_mee...

I see from the reply the applicant received that these documents were heavily redacted relying on the exceptions for the protection of international relations, privacy and integrity of the individual, as well as the protection of commercial interests. I wish, however, to argue against these redactions and ask to disclose the documents in full.

In regard to the international relations exception invoked, the original answer does not give any specific argument WHY disclosure of the document in question would undermine the protection of international relations. I note that this exception is typically invoked in discussions with state actors or international organizations, not private actors such as the Tony Blair Institute. Also, just because the subject matter concerns international relations and is sensitive does not mean that disclosure of the content harms the EU's external relations. On the contrary, I would argue that withholding information on meetings with a registered lobbyists could easily lead the public to wrong conclusions, therefore transparency is key.

In regard to the privacy argument, I note that senior Commission officials (those mentioned in the Whoiswho) are usually not redacted. The same should apply to senior figures of the Tony Blair Institute, including those registered in the Transparency Register and public figures such as former UK prime minister Tony Blair and former Finnish prime minister Sanna Marin. In particular in the latter two cases, I see a considerable public interest in being able to understand their interactions with public officials, therefore not redaction of their names is warranted.

In regard to the protection of commercial interest invoked, just because a private actor claims there is a commercial interest does not relieve the Commission from an individual assessment whether that is the case. In the present case, the content evidently concerns possible action against land mines - hardly a subject matter for which traditionally the commercial interest exception has been applied. How is an action program against land mines a business secret? I kindly ask to make a specific assessment of whether this truly applies.

Kind regards,

Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue Auguste Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles