| DATA PROTECTION — Personal data — Access request — Data in EC Commission document — Conditions for refusing access — European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, arts 4(1)(b), 6(1) — European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, art 8(b)
Bavarian Lager Co Ltd (supported by European Data Protection Supervisor) v Commission of the European Communities (Case T-194/04)
CFI: President of Chamber Jaeger, Judges Tiili and Czúcz: 8 November 2007
A request to the Commission of the European Communities for access to personal data contained in a Commission document could only be refused on the grounds of the privacy and integrity of the persons if such privacy and integrity were capable of being actually and specifically undermined by disclosure, and the applicant did not have to prove that disclosure was necessary.
The Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities so held, inter alia, when annulling a Commission decision of 18 March 2004 rejecting an application for access to the full minutes of a meeting.
Art 2(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to European institution documents provides: “Any citizen of the Union … has a right of access to documents of the institutions, subject to … this Regulation”, but art 4 provides for exceptions, inter alia, “where disclosure would undermine the protection of ” “privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data” (para (1)(b)) and “the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits” (para (2), third indent). By art 6(1), “... The applicant is not obliged to state reasons for the application.” Art 5 of Regulation 45/2001 on the free movement and processing by the Community institutions of personal data provides: “Personal data may be processed only if … (b) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject …” By art 8: “… personal data shall only be transferred to recipients … (b) if the recipient establishes the necessity of having the data transferred …”
By United Kingdom rules as then in force, beer such as the German beer imported into the UK by the claimant could not be sold as a guest beer in tied public houses. A meeting, at which the claimant was refused attendance, convened in Brussels in connection with proposed proceedings by the Commission against the UK for maintaining a measure equivalent to import restrictions, was attended by, among others, representatives of various European alcoholic drink interests. On the claimant’s request for access to the minutes of that meeting, the Commission disclosed certain documents, but with the names of five participants in the meeting blanked out, the Commission stating that two of the five had refused consent to the disclosure of their identity and the other three could not be contacted. The claimant’s repeated request for the full minutes of the meeting, including all the names, was rejected by the Commission on the ground that as the claimant had not established an express and legitimate purpose or need for such disclosure, the conditions in art 8 of Regulation 45/2001 had not been met and the exception in art 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 applied; alternatively, disclosure was barred by art 4(2), third indent. The claimant sought inter alia annulment of that decision.
THE COURT said, inter alia, that the case highlighted the relationship between Regulations 1049/2001 and 45/2001, whose objectives were to ensure, in the first case, transparency in the decision-making process of the public authorities, and in the second, the protection of the private life of individuals in the handling of personal data. If Regulation 1049/2001 required the communication of data (which constituted “processing” within Regulation 45/2001), art 5 of the latter Regulation rendered such communication lawful. By art 6(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, a person requesting access was not required to justify his request and therefore did not have to demonstrate any interest in having access to the documents requested; therefore, where personal data were transferred in order to give effect to art 2 of that Regulation, the situation fell within that Regulation and the applicant therefore did not need to prove the necessity of disclosure, as referred to in art 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001. In determining whether the exception under art 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 applied, it was necessary to examine whether public access to the names of the participants at the Brussels meeting was capable of actually and specifically undermining the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the persons concerned. That had not been made out, as, inter alia, those persons had participated at the meeting as representatives of the bodies to which they belonged and the minutes contained only the opinions attributable to those bodies, and not those of the individuals, so that disclosure of their names would not affect their private lives. As to art 4(2), third indent, the mere fact that the meeting was linked to proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, and thus concerned investigations, did not suffice to justify application of that exception. The exception was designed for the situation where disclosure risked jeopardising the completion of inspections, investigations or audits; but in the present case the infringement proceedings against the UK had already been closed by the time the decision of 18 March 2004 was adopted. For those and further reasons, the decision would be annulled.
|
