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 any document held by the EEAS regarding the use of Starlink by the Ukrainian government. This is meant to include white papers, internal EEAS exchanges (e-mail, etc), submissions by member states or any other document held by the EEAS in regard to Starlink. This is meant to cover, in particular, any document mentioning the financing of Starlink terminals for Ukraine by the European Union and/or its member states. The time frame for my request is any document produced or received by the EEAS within the past 24 months.

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue August Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles

My request reads as follows:

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 any document held by the EEAS regarding the use of Starlink by the Ukrainian government. This is meant to include white papers, internal EEAS exchanges (e-mail, etc), submissions by member states or any other document held by the EEAS in regard to Starlink. This is meant to cover, in particular, any document mentioning the financing of Starlink terminals for Ukraine by the European Union and/or its member states. The time frame for my request is any document produced or received by the EEAS within the past 24 months.

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue August Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles

Dear Mr. Promelle,

I refer to your letter dated 24 September 2024 regarding my request for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, specifically concerning the use of Starlink by the Ukrainian government. I respectfully submit this confirmatory application requesting a review of your decision to deny access to the identified documents.

1. Misapplication of Article 4(1)(a) – Public Interest and International Relations

You have invoked Article 4(1)(a) third indent, to withhold several documents, including the reports from the EU Delegation in Vienna, the EBRD Board Meetings, and internal EEAS email exchanges, citing potential harm to the EU’s international relations. However, the exception has been over-applied. The content and nature of these documents are of significant public interest, particularly regarding the role of Starlink and EU funding in the context of Ukraine’s defense efforts.

In particular:

Document 1 (Report of EU DEL Vienna, Weekly Report 09 – 13 October 2023): Your argument that disclosure would undermine international cooperation with various multilateral organizations appears speculative and lacks substantiation. Generalized claims about the potential damage to trust do not meet the strict requirement under the Regulation that such harm must be "reasonably foreseeable" and not merely hypothetical. Furthermore, partial disclosure of the specific sections relevant to Starlink or Ukraine could be made without harming these relations.

Document 2 (EBRD Board Meetings, 14 and 16 December 2022): The public interest in transparency regarding EU involvement in funding defence infrastructure for Ukraine outweighs the theoretical harm to international relations. The EBRD operates in a transparent framework, and withholding information on ongoing projects based on speculative harm lacks a sufficient legal basis. Partial disclosure, with redactions to sensitive non-relevant sections, would satisfy the balance between transparency and confidentiality.

Document 4 (Internal EEAS email correspondence, 24 August 2023): Preliminary assessments and potential actions related to Starlink are crucial for public debate and oversight. There is no demonstrated "real and foreseeable" risk to EU international relations that would justify the blanket withholding of this document under Article 4(1)(a). Partial access should be provided, focusing on non-sensitive matters while protecting specific diplomatic negotiations, if necessary.

2. Article 4(1)(a) First Indent – Public Security

Document 3 and Document 5 have been withheld under the public security exception (Article 4(1)(a), first indent), specifically citing concerns that the disclosure of information could be exploited by adverse actors or compromise security strategies.

Document 3 (Note verbale from the Mission of Ukraine to the EU): While the document may contain sensitive information about satellite communications, selective redaction of operational details can adequately protect security interests while still allowing for transparency regarding the EU’s strategic involvement. The public deserves to know the EU's role in funding and supporting Ukraine's defence efforts, especially given the substantial public investment involved.

Document 5 (PowerPoint presentation by the European Defence Agency): While the technical characteristics of satellite systems may be sensitive, there is a significant public interest in understanding the EU's defence strategies in Ukraine. Again, selective redactions can be made to protect sensitive information, while still allowing the public to understand the broader context of EU-Ukraine cooperation.

3. Article 4(3) – Decision-Making Process

The application of Article 4(3) to Document 4 to protect the decision-making process is not justified. The document relates to Starlink's role in the Ukraine war, an issue of considerable public importance and debate. Transparency in decision-making, particularly regarding the allocation of resources for defence infrastructure, is paramount. The EEAS has not demonstrated how disclosure would cause specific, concrete harm to the decision-making process, and thus this exception has been improperly applied.

4. Failure to Apply the Principle of Proportionality and Partial Access (Article 4(6))

In accordance with Article 4(6) of the Regulation, you are required to consider granting partial access to the documents by redacting only the sensitive portions. You state that partial access would "deprive the documents of any useful effect," yet this assertion is insufficiently justified. The documents contain substantial information that could be released without compromising the public interest or the EU's international relations. Failing to offer redacted versions is inconsistent with the principle of proportionality and the public’s right to access information.
5. Overriding Public Interest (Article 4(2))

I would also like to draw attention to the overriding public interest in disclosure. The EU’s role in funding and managing defence-related projects in Ukraine is a matter of substantial public debate. Given the vast public resources being deployed and the significant geopolitical implications of the EU's actions, the public has a right to scrutinize these activities. The principle of transparency should prevail, especially in the context of international security and defence.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request the EEAS to reconsider its decision and grant access to the requested documents, either fully or partially, with necessary redactions to protect genuinely sensitive information. The public interest in understanding the EU’s involvement in Ukraine’s defence strategy far outweighs the speculative and unsubstantiated harms cited in your refusal.

Kind regards,

Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue Auguste Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles
Belgium