Dear European External Action Service,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting the name and group description of the Signal group of EU foreign ministers for which High Representative Kaja Kallas is the administrator. I also wish to request a list of all group members.

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue Auguste Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles

Dear Mr. Nurmi,

I hereby submit a confirmatory application pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 concerning the refusal of the European External Action Service (EEAS) to disclose the name and descriptions of the Signal group used in the framework of the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC).

1. The requested information constitutes a “document” under Article 3(a) of Regulation 1049/2001

The EEAS argues that “no document” exists containing the name or description of the Signal group. However, under Article 3(a) of the Regulation, “‘document’ shall mean any content whatever its medium […] concerning a matter relating to the policies, activities and decisions” of an EU institution. The name and internal description of a Signal group used for exchanges between Council participants clearly represent content produced or used by an EU institution in connection with the performance of its tasks.

It is irrelevant whether the information is stored in the form of a traditional paper memorandum, an internal note or in the settings of a digital communication platform. The Court of Justice has confirmed on numerous occasions that the concept of “document” must be interpreted broadly and covers any recorded information held by the institution that relates to its activities (see Case T-163/21, De Capitani; Case T-851/16, Pollinis).

It follows that the name given to the Signal group and its corresponding description (purpose, scope, participants) is information stored in a recorded way—i.e. in the settings, configuration and metadata of an institutional communication platform—and is therefore a “document” within the meaning of Regulation 1049/2001.

2. The fact that such information is embedded in a software tool is irrelevant

The EEAS cannot avoid its transparency obligations simply because the information is embedded in an electronic communication tool. The usage settings of a communication platform are the functional equivalent of an internal document describing the group’s purpose and composition. If necessary, the institution should extract or compile that information for the purpose of access (see Case T-653/16, Campbell v Commission, para 35).

3. The requested information concerns institutional activity

The Signal group is used precisely for exchanges between representatives of Member States and EU institutions in the context of the Foreign Affairs Council. These exchanges relate directly to the Council’s decision-making and thus fall squarely under the scope of Regulation 1049/2001. The name and description of the group therefore concern the institution’s activities and cannot be considered purely private or informal.

4. No exception of the Regulation applies

At this stage no specific exception has been invoked. In any event, the mere name and description of a communication channel cannot in itself jeopardise the protection of any public or private interest mentioned in Article 4. Should the institution believe that certain details are sensitive, it must provide a sufficiently detailed explanation for refusing access, and consider partial disclosure.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the EEAS cannot lawfully assert that no “document” exists. The name and description of the Signal group used in the context of the FAC constitute documents within the meaning of Article 3(a) of Regulation 1049/2001. The initial refusal should therefore be reviewed and full access should be granted.

I kindly request that the EEAS reconsider its position and provide access accordingly.

Kind regards,
Alexander Fanta

Dear Mr Nurmi,
thank you for updating me on the status of my confirmatory application.
Please disregard the case law referenced in the application, it was wrongfully cited in an early draft and should not have made it to the final text.

Yours sincerely,

Alexander Fanta