Dear Secretariat General of the European Commission,

I am writing to request, under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents, and in line with the European Union’s commitment to transparency, information concerning the expenses incurred by a Kathraina von Schnurbein, [her in capacity as the EU's coordinator on combating anti-semitism] during her visits to Israel.

Specifically, I request the following details:

A detailed breakdown of all expenses incurred, including but not limited to:

Flights (including the cost, class of travel, and airline used)
Hotel accommodations (including the cost per night and the name of the hotel)
Any other expenses (transport, meals, etc.)
The purpose of the visit to Israel, including the date(s) of travel and the specific Israeli official(s) involved.
The name of the entity and/or institution that paid for those costs

This request is made in accordance with the principles of transparency and accountability outlined in Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which mandates that “Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.”

Additionally, this request is also governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which establishes the right of public access to documents held by the EU institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies. Specifically, I am requesting this information under Article 1 of the Regulation, which grants access to documents unless there is an overriding public or private interest in withholding them.

If any part of this request is not clear or if you require any further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to your response within the 15 working days stipulated by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

If you deny access to any of the requested information, please provide the specific legal grounds for the refusal as required under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Yours sincerely,

Nikolaj Nielsen

EUobserver
Résidence Palace, International Press Centre
Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat 155
1040 Brussels
Belgium

Dear Secretariat General of the European Commission,

Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.

I am filing the following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request 'Travel expenses: EU's coordinator on combating anti-semitism'.

My request sought transparency regarding expenses incurred by Ms. Katharina von Schnurbein, in her capacity as the EU Coordinator on Combating Anti-Semitism, during her official visits to Israel. This included details related to flights, accommodation, transport, meals, and meetings with Israeli officials.

Your refusal was based on the application of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (the Data Protection Regulation), citing concerns over personal data protection. However, I respectfully challenge this decision on the following legal and public interest grounds:

1. Public Interest & Legal Precedents Supporting Transparency

The current conflict in Gaza has heightened public scrutiny regarding EU diplomatic engagement with Israel, particularly with regard to its position on humanitarian issues, human rights, and foreign policy decisions. Ms. von Schnurbein’s meetings with Israeli authorities must be transparent, as her role may influence EU policy towards Israel, Jewish communities, and the broader geopolitical landscape.

Why This Information Serves a Critical Public Interest
EU Citizens Have a Right to Know the Basis of Diplomatic Engagements: The EU’s stance on Israel’s actions in Gaza has been subject to international debate. Who Ms. von Schnurbein met with, the nature of the discussions, and the funding behind these visits are directly relevant to understanding the EU’s diplomatic priorities.

Avoiding Perceived Conflicts of Interest: Disclosing who financed these trips is essential to ensure there is no undue influence from Israeli authorities or third parties on EU policy.

Transparency in Crisis Situations: The EU has funded humanitarian aid to Gaza while also engaging diplomatically with Israel. Transparency regarding high-level officials’ visits is necessary for public trust.

The principle of transparency in public expenditure is a well-established legal norm within EU jurisprudence. The European Courts and the European Ombudsman have consistently held that financial information pertaining to public officials in their official capacity should be subject to disclosure, as it does not fall within the scope of personal data protections when weighed against public interest.

Legal Support for Public Interest in Foreign Policy Transparency
C-280/11 Access Info Europe (2013) – The Court ruled that access to documents related to EU foreign relations is crucial for democratic accountability and public debate. The judgment emphasized that public institutions must not deny access without proving that disclosure would cause concrete harm.

T-233/09 Dennekamp v. European Parliament (2011) – The General Court confirmed that EU citizens have the right to scrutinize the financial accountability of high-level officials when public funds are involved.

T-214/11 ClientEarth v. EFSA (2015) – The Court held that public interest in transparency regarding decision-making overrides individual privacy concerns, especially in matters affecting public policy.

Given the high-profile and sensitive nature of the EU’s engagement with Israel during the Gaza conflict, transparency must take precedence.

2. Financial Information of Public Officials is Not “Personal Data”
Your refusal cites Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, arguing that identifying and confirming these documents constitutes the processing of personal data. However, this broad interpretation contradicts established case law and EU transparency principles:

Public officials performing their duties have a lower expectation of privacy regarding official expenses. Financial information related to public functions is not inherently “personal data.” The Data Protection Regulation does not apply when public interest in financial transparency outweighs privacy concerns.

Case Law Supporting Disclosure of Public Spending
De Capitani v. European Parliament (T-540/15, 2018) – The General Court ruled that documents related to public officials’ roles and expenditures must be disclosed unless a compelling reason for confidentiality exists.

Ombudsman Case 682/2014/JF (2016) – Commissioner Travel Expenses – The European Ombudsman found that EU officials’ travel and expense reports must be publicly accessible to ensure transparency.

Bavarian Lager Case (C-28/08 P, 2010) – The ECJ ruled that personal data protection cannot be used as an absolute ground for refusal when a strong public interest justifies disclosure.

These cases confirm that expenses incurred in an official capacity do not qualify as protected personal data, particularly when they are related to EU policy-making, foreign relations, and public funds.

3. Proportionality – Partial Disclosure Must Be Considered
Even if certain details (e.g., security arrangements or personal identification numbers) are deemed sensitive, a full refusal is disproportionate. The principle of proportionality requires the Commission to provide at least a partial disclosure of the requested information.

The CJEU in De Capitani v. European Parliament (T-540/15, 2018) confirmed that EU institutions must consider partial access rather than outright denial. Redacting specific personal data while releasing financial details and meeting records would be a lawful and balanced approach.

4. Request for Review & Justification for Refusal
Given the strong legal precedent favouring transparency and the overriding public interest in accountability during the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict, I formally request that the Commission:

Reassess the balance between personal data protection and transparency obligations. Disclose at least a partial version of the requested financial details, with necessary redactions where strictly required.

Provide a clear justification if refusal is maintained, ensuring compliance with the proportionality principle upheld by the CJEU. The refusal to even confirm the existence of these documents is legally disproportionate and contradicts EU transparency obligations. As such, I urge the Commission to reconsider its position.

I look forward to your response within the statutory timeframe of 15 working days.

Dear Secretariat General of the European Commission,

Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.

I am filing the following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request 'Travel expenses: EU's coordinator on combating anti-semitism'.

Your time limit expired on 13/05/2025. By law you should have responded by now.

Yours faithfully,

Nikolaj Nielsen