Dear Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations,

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:

Note for the File
Subject: Bucharest - Working Group on Intercountry Adoption 29 November 2001
7 December 2001
ELARG/C4/RP(D2001)95625

Yours faithfully,

Against Child Trafficking (ACT)
Keizersgracht 482
1017EG Amsterdam

Dear Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations,

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 'Working Group on Intercountry Adoption 29 November 2001'.

Legal timelimit has expired.

Please ensure that public access is provided within the legal timelimits of confirmatory appeal.

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

Yours faithfully,

Against Child Trafficking
Arun Dohle

Dear Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations,

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 'Working Group on Intercountry Adoption 29 November 2001'.

Dear Mrs Juhansone,

I am writing to submit a confirmatory application pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, requesting a review of the European Commission’s decision (Ref: EASE 2025/0865, dated 12 May 2025) to partially disclose the document titled “Note for the File Subject: Bucharest - Working Group on Intercountry Adoption 29 November 2001 – 7 December 2001 ELARG/C4/(D2001)95625”. Specifically, I contest the redaction of personal data and other information under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and request full disclosure of the document in the public interest, particularly in light of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling of 14 May 2025 on transparency obligations.

Grounds for the Confirmatory Application

Public Interest in Full Transparency on Intercountry Adoption
The requested document relates to a Working Group on Intercountry Adoption, a matter of profound public interest due to its implications for the protection of vulnerable children and allegations of systemic issues in international adoption processes, including the potential exploitation of abandoned children. The European Commission’s historical role in addressing these issues, particularly in Romania’s adoption policies, necessitates full transparency to ensure accountability and public trust.
The redaction of names, initials, contact details, functions, and personal opinions obstructs public understanding of the decision-making processes and the roles of individuals involved in this sensitive issue. Full disclosure is essential to enable scrutiny of the Commission’s actions and to foster informed public debate on intercountry adoption, a practice that has been criticized as akin to a “trade in abandoned children.”

ECJ Ruling Reinforcing Transparency Obligations
On 14 May 2025, the ECJ ruled that the European Commission violated transparency rules by refusing access to text messages between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer, emphasizing that the Commission must ensure “the widest possible public access to documents” under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (Case T-561/21, Alexander Fanta v Commission). The Court clarified that the Commission’s failure to conduct a diligent search for relevant documents and its overly restrictive interpretation of access rights were unlawful. This precedent directly supports my request for full disclosure, as the Commission’s broad redaction of personal data in the requested document appears similarly restrictive and unjustified, particularly given the public interest at stake.

Prior Publication and Reduced Privacy Expectations
The information in the requested document is closely tied to matters already publicized in Romania for Export Only by Roelie Post, a whistleblower and former Commission official. The book, encouraged by former Secretary-General Catherine Day, who stated, “the more people know, the better,” details the Commission’s involvement in Romania’s intercountry adoption system. As this information is already partially in the public domain, the privacy concerns cited under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 are significantly diminished.
Individuals mentioned in the document, particularly Commission staff and stakeholders in the Working Group, acted in their professional capacities. The public interest in understanding their roles outweighs limited privacy interests, especially since the events occurred in 2001, over 23 years ago, and the information has been partially exposed through credible public sources.

Necessity for a Specific Purpose in the Public Interest
I assert that disclosing the redacted personal data (names, initials, functions, and opinions) is necessary for a specific public interest purpose: ensuring accountability and transparency regarding the Commission’s policies on intercountry adoption. Given historical allegations of corruption and child trafficking in Romania’s adoption system, full disclosure will enable researchers, journalists, and civil society to verify the Commission’s actions, identify key decision-makers, and assess whether adequate measures protected vulnerable children.
There is no reason to assume that disclosing this information would prejudice the legitimate interests of the individuals concerned. The redacted data pertains to professional activities in a public capacity, and the significant time elapsed since 2001 further reduces potential harm. The ECJ’s recent ruling underscores that transparency must prevail when public interest is evident, as in this case.

Proportionality of Redactions
The Commission’s blanket redaction of names, functions, and opinions is disproportionate and undermines the principle of maximum transparency under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The ECJ’s 14 May 2025 ruling criticized the Commission for failing to balance transparency obligations with exceptions, such as privacy concerns (Case T-561/21). A targeted approach—disclosing professional details like names and functions of Commission staff and stakeholders while redacting strictly private information (e.g., personal contact details)—would better align with the Regulation and the ECJ’s guidance.

Request for Relief
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the European Commission:
- Review its decision to redact parts of the document under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, considering the ECJ’s 14 May 2025 ruling on transparency.

- Provide full access to the document “Note for the File Subject: Bucharest - Working Group on Intercountry Adoption 29 November 2001 – 7 December 2001 ELARG/C4/(D2001)95625”, including all redacted personal data and text, in the public interest.

If full disclosure is deemed infeasible, provide a detailed justification for each redaction and consider partial disclosure of professional details (e.g., names and functions) that do not prejudice individuals’ legitimate interests.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response within the statutory timeframe of 15 working days, as outlined in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Yours sincerely,
Arun Dohle
Against Child trafficking

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

Yours faithfully,

Arun Dohle

Dear Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations,

We already filed a confirmatory appeal, please confirm receipt:

Please forward to the SecGen, since they seem not yet aware.

Arun Dohle May 14, 2025
Delivered
Dear Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations,

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 'Working Group on Intercountry Adoption 29 November 2001'.

Dear Mrs Juhansone,

I am writing to submit a confirmatory application pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, requesting a review of the European Commission’s decision (Ref: EASE 2025/0865, dated 12 May 2025) to partially disclose the document titled “Note for the File Subject: Bucharest - Working Group on Intercountry Adoption 29 November 2001 – 7 December 2001 ELARG/C4/(D2001)95625”. Specifically, I contest the redaction of personal data and other information under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and request full disclosure of the document in the public interest, particularly in light of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling of 14 May 2025 on transparency obligations.

Grounds for the Confirmatory Application

Public Interest in Full Transparency on Intercountry Adoption
The requested document relates to a Working Group on Intercountry Adoption, a matter of profound public interest due to its implications for the protection of vulnerable children and allegations of systemic issues in international adoption processes, including the potential exploitation of abandoned children. The European Commission’s historical role in addressing these issues, particularly in Romania’s adoption policies, necessitates full transparency to ensure accountability and public trust.
The redaction of names, initials, contact details, functions, and personal opinions obstructs public understanding of the decision-making processes and the roles of individuals involved in this sensitive issue. Full disclosure is essential to enable scrutiny of the Commission’s actions and to foster informed public debate on intercountry adoption, a practice that has been criticized as akin to a “trade in abandoned children.”

ECJ Ruling Reinforcing Transparency Obligations
On 14 May 2025, the ECJ ruled that the European Commission violated transparency rules by refusing access to text messages between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer, emphasizing that the Commission must ensure “the widest possible public access to documents” under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (Case T-561/21, Alexander Fanta v Commission). The Court clarified that the Commission’s failure to conduct a diligent search for relevant documents and its overly restrictive interpretation of access rights were unlawful. This precedent directly supports my request for full disclosure, as the Commission’s broad redaction of personal data in the requested document appears similarly restrictive and unjustified, particularly given the public interest at stake.

Prior Publication and Reduced Privacy Expectations
The information in the requested document is closely tied to matters already publicized in Romania for Export Only by Roelie Post, a whistleblower and former Commission official. The book, encouraged by former Secretary-General Catherine Day, who stated, “the more people know, the better,” details the Commission’s involvement in Romania’s intercountry adoption system. As this information is already partially in the public domain, the privacy concerns cited under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 are significantly diminished.
Individuals mentioned in the document, particularly Commission staff and stakeholders in the Working Group, acted in their professional capacities. The public interest in understanding their roles outweighs limited privacy interests, especially since the events occurred in 2001, over 23 years ago, and the information has been partially exposed through credible public sources.

Necessity for a Specific Purpose in the Public Interest
I assert that disclosing the redacted personal data (names, initials, functions, and opinions) is necessary for a specific public interest purpose: ensuring accountability and transparency regarding the Commission’s policies on intercountry adoption. Given historical allegations of corruption and child trafficking in Romania’s adoption system, full disclosure will enable researchers, journalists, and civil society to verify the Commission’s actions, identify key decision-makers, and assess whether adequate measures protected vulnerable children.
There is no reason to assume that disclosing this information would prejudice the legitimate interests of the individuals concerned. The redacted data pertains to professional activities in a public capacity, and the significant time elapsed since 2001 further reduces potential harm. The ECJ’s recent ruling underscores that transparency must prevail when public interest is evident, as in this case.

Proportionality of Redactions
The Commission’s blanket redaction of names, functions, and opinions is disproportionate and undermines the principle of maximum transparency under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The ECJ’s 14 May 2025 ruling criticized the Commission for failing to balance transparency obligations with exceptions, such as privacy concerns (Case T-561/21). A targeted approach—disclosing professional details like names and functions of Commission staff and stakeholders while redacting strictly private information (e.g., personal contact details)—would better align with the Regulation and the ECJ’s guidance.

Request for Relief
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the European Commission:
- Review its decision to redact parts of the document under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, considering the ECJ’s 14 May 2025 ruling on transparency.

- Provide full access to the document “Note for the File Subject: Bucharest - Working Group on Intercountry Adoption 29 November 2001 – 7 December 2001 ELARG/C4/(D2001)95625”, including all redacted personal data and text, in the public interest.

If full disclosure is deemed infeasible, provide a detailed justification for each redaction and consider partial disclosure of professional details (e.g., names and functions) that do not prejudice individuals’ legitimate interests.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response within the statutory timeframe of 15 working days, as outlined in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Yours sincerely,
Arun Dohle
Against Child trafficking