Dear Research and Innovation (RTD),

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:The project proposal for the AMIGA project which started in December 2011

Yours faithfully,

Stella Coffey

Dear Research and Innovation (RTD),

Can you confirm when I might get a response to my informaiton request. It is required urgently.

Yours faithfully,

Stella Coffey

Dear Research and Innovation (RTD),

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Research and Innovation (RTD)'s handling of my FOI request 'Project proposal of AMIGA'.

I do not agree with the reasons given for restricting my access to the information sought. I am consulting legal advice to plan how to deal with your restrictions and will be in touch shortly

1. I understood that it is common practice to black out 'personal data and personal information' from such documents when they are released to the public. The Art4.1(b) reason quoted for refusal, given the above practice, is unreasonable, considering the publicly-funded nature of the seventh frameowork programme.

2. I am consulting legal advice regarding the second reason given for refusal, Art 4.2 and will be in contact regarding it shortly

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

Yours faithfully,

Stella Coffey

Dear Research and Innovation (RTD),

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Research and Innovation (RTD)'s handling of my FOI request 'Project proposal of AMIGA'.

Confirmatory Application - Gestdem number 2012/1414
Stella Coffey

To Secretary-General
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
Email: [email address]

This is a confirmatory application under Regulation 1049/2001 regarding my request for access to the AMIGA project proposal, which was denied on two grounds: first, in order to protect the privacy and personal data of the applicants, and secondly, in order to protect commercial interests and the intellectual property rights of the authors.

Your response to my request begins explaining that you “had to ask the project partners being the authors of the project proposal and the owners of the corresponding intellectual property rights to give their consent to the publication.”

However, Regulation 1049/2001 states that “As regards third-party documents, the institution shall consult the third party with a view to assessing whether an exception in paragraph 1 or 2 is applicable, unless it is clear that the document shall or shall not be disclosed. ” The choice of the word “consult” is a clear indication that it is up to the institution to assess whether or not the reasons provided by the third party for not granting access to the requested information fit within those permitted by Regulation 1049/2001 and would stand up before a Court, given that the body legally responsible for the decision is the EU institution in question.

Your conclusion therefore, that “Since [the authors] have not agreed to publish the full proposal, it cannot be disclosed”, lacks thorough argumentation, is not your own analysis, and is in violation of Regulation 1049/2001. I kindly ask you to rethink this position.

I will also address your two substantive arguments in turn:

Personal Data Exception

The protection of personal data is a fundamental right, as is the right of access to EU-held documents. Thus, the two rights should be balanced accordingly. However, names and cvs are not data that would affect the privacy and integrity of the individual.

In fact, the AMIGA project website which you directed me to already includes the names and cvs of the project participants; in some cases even their photo has been published. It is therefore not clear why you have decided to deny information that is already in the public domain, and which, once again, does not affect neither the privacy nor the integrity of the person concerned. Please see for example: http://www.amigaproject.eu/web/partners/...

In contrast to the contents of the proposal, personal data is the only type of information that requires prior approval from the person concerned. But insisting that individuals who have received EU funds should be exempt from public scrutiny is of serious concern and undoubtedly fuels the currently growing public sentiment that the EU is unaccountable and lacks transparency. In any event, I should at least be able to see which organisations are involved in the project, as this is definitely not private information, and they are also the beneficiaries of this EU funding.

Commercial interest & Intellectual Property

You state in your answer to my request that “disclosure of the detailed proposal could have a negative effect on the commercial interest as well as the intellectual property rights of the participants” and that “disclosure can lead to financial damage for the project”.

It is my understanding that research projects composed mostly of Research Institutes, Universities and State Agencies do not have a commercial component, nor financial interests. An indication of this is that Teagasc, the Agriculture & Food Development Authority the AMIGA project partner based in Ireland has expressly stated (in its licence application under 2001/18EC and 1829/2003EC as transposed under SI 500 of 2003 into Irish law. See p23 http://www.epa.ie/downloads/forms/lic/gm... ) that there is no industry involvement in its study and that TEAGASC does not intend to seek consent for placing on the market the potato lines cultivated in this study. This Teagasc statement is completely at odds with the possibility that disclosure of ‘concrete implementation of the project’ could ‘lead to financial damage for the project’.

Lastly, you have concluded that the public interest in this information does not outweigh the need to protect the privacy, commercial interests or intellectual property of beneficiaries of EU funds. I believe that on the contrary, the public interest in this information is particularly high for two principle reasons, one being the need to ensure sound management of EU funds, the other stemming from the fact that this project relates to the testing, on EU soil, of genetically modified potatoes.

Therefore, the information requested can also be deemed to be environmental information, as defined by the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, and the corresponding EU Regulation. These establish a principle that there is no secrecy when it comes to commercial interests and intellectual property rights if the information requested is about emissions into the environment. Arguably, planting genetically modified crops on EU soil is in itself an emission into the environment, as are the side products generated by the day-to-day running of the experimentation site.

Furthermore, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the locations of GMO crops can never be considered confidential. In this respect, please see the ruling from the Commune de Sausheim v Pierre Azelvandre Case C-552/07. I believe that the proposal contains information relevant to the plantation of GMO crops which is of high public interest.

I therefore kindly request that you reconsider your decision to deny me the information requested, based on the arguments provided above and taking into consideration the fact that access to this information is a right of the European public.

Yours sincerely

Stella Coffey
Ireland

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

Yours faithfully,

Stella Coffey