Report from the Commission on the application in 2005 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents
Date: 2007-09-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament, access to EU information, activity report, application of EU law, provision of documents

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 24.9.2007 
COM(2007) 548 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the application in 2005 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to 
European Parliament, Council and Commission documents 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
FOREWORD 

Article  17(1)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1049/2001  regarding  public  access  to  European 
Parliament, Council and Commission documents1 provides that each institution must publish 
an  annual  report  stating  the  number  of  cases  in  which  it  has  refused  to  grant  access  to 
documents  and  the  reasons  for  such  refusals.  The  report  must  also  specify  the  number  of 
sensitive  documents  for  which  references  have  not  been  included  in  the  public  register  of 
documents. 

This report on 2005 is the fourth report submitted by the Commission under this provision. 

The annex to this report contains statistics on the processing of applications for access. The 
figures  for  the  four  years  of  application  of  the  Regulation  are  set  out  in  a  series  of  tables 
showing how implementation has evolved. The statistics refer only to applications for access 
to  unpublished  documents  and  do  not  cover  orders  for  published  documents  or  requests  for 
information. 

1. 

Transparency policy 

In  2005  the  European  Transparency  Initiative  was  launched,  in  line  with  the 
Commission's strategic objectives for 2005-2009. Following a first policy debate at 
its meeting of 18 May 20052, the Commission decided to launch the initiative on 9 
November 2005. It comprised three sets of measures. 

1.1. 

Improving access to information: 

–  publishing information on the final beneficiaries of EU funds; 

–  achieving better synergy between databases to expand the scope of the register. 

1.2. 

Publishing a green paper in 2006 to launch debate on: 

–  a  legal  obligation  for  Member  States  to  publish  the  information  about  the  end 

beneficiaries of Community funds under shared management; 

–  the activities of interest groups; 

–  the Commission’s consultation practices. 

1.3. 

Launching  inter-institutional  debate  on  the  legislation  regarding  public  access  to 
documents, based on the Report from the Commission on the implementation of the 
principles  in  EC  Regulation  No  1049/20013  and  on  public  consultation  concerning 
possible revision of the Regulation. 

2. 

Online registers and sites 

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. 
See minutes of 1702nd meeting of the Commission. 
Report of 30 January 2004, COM(2004) 45. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

At  the  end  of  2005,  the  register  of  Commission  documents  recorded  61 085 
documents (see annexed table). 

Article  9(3)  of  the  Regulation  provides  that  documents  defined  as  "sensitive"4  may 
be  recorded  in  the  register  only  with  the  consent  of  the  originator.  In  2005  no 
sensitive document within the meaning of this provision was included in the register. 

Following  an  undertaking  by  the  Commission's  President  to  the  European 
Parliament,  a specific register  of  expert groups was set up on 3 October 2005. The 
register provides an overview of all the advisory bodies which assist the Commission 
and  its  departments  in  preparing  legislative  proposals  and  policy  initiatives.  A 
register of committees assisting the Commission in the exercise of the implementing 
powers conferred on it by the legislator had already been set up in 2003. 

2.4. 

The table below shows the statistics on consultation of the Openness and Access to 
Documents website on EUROPA. 

Number of visitors: 

Number of sessions 

Pages viewed 

98 804

8 234

151 176

12 598

203 159

16 930

Total 

Monthly 
average 

3. 

Cooperation with the other institutions and the Member States 

The  Interinstitutional  Committee  provided  for  in  Article  15(2)  of  the  Regulation 
did not meet at political level in 2005. However, the senior officials responsible for 
applying the Regulation in each of the three institutions5 met on 11 November 2005. 
They  decided 
interinstitutional  cooperation  at 
departmental level by setting up two specific working groups, 

to  cooperate  and  formalise 

–  a group responsible for coordinating the registers and other information tools, and 

–  a forum for discussing legal issues concerning application of the regulation.  

4. 

Analysis of access applications 

4.1. 

The  number  of  initial  applications,  which  had  increased  constantly  since  the 
Regulation was adopted, continued to grow, although not so fast as in 2004. Initial 
applications registered in 2005 totalled 3 173, an increase of 573, or 22.1%, on the 
number  received  in  2004.  In  2003  and  2004  the  increases  had  been  53.7%  and 
70.72% respectively. 

4 

5 

"documents originating from the institutions or the agencies established by them, from Member States, 
third  countries  or  International  Organisations,  classified  as  "TRÈS  SECRET/TOP  SECRET", 
"SECRET"  or  "CONFIDENTIEL"  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  the  institution  concerned,  which 
protect essential interests of the European Union or of one or more of its Member States in the areas 
covered by Article 4(1)(a), notably public security, defence and military matters" (Article 9(1)). 
The  Deputy  Secretary-General  of  the  European  Parliament,  the  Director-General  responsible  for 
information  and  protocol  in  the  Council  Secretariat  and  the  Deputy  Secretary-General  of  the 
Commission. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

The number of confirmatory applications remained more or less constant at 167 in 
2005 as against 162 in 2004. 

There  was  little  change  in  the  break-down  of  applications  by  area  of  interest. 
Competition,  customs  duties  and  indirect  taxation,  the  single  market  and  the 
environment  accounted  for  almost  35%  of  applications.  However,  interest  grew  in 
enterprise policy, transport and energy, regional policy and cooperation on justice. 

Three  was  no  significant  variation  in  the  break-down  of  applications  by  social  and 
occupational  categories.  Interest  groups,  NGOs  and  enterprises  accounted  for  more 
than 40% of applications. 

The  geographical  break-down  of  applications  also  remained  constant.  Almost  a 
quarter  of  the  applications  came  from  persons  of  bodies  established  in  Belgium 
because of the number of enterprises, law firms, associations and NGOs operating at 
European  level.  Apart  from  that,  the  bulk  of  the  applications  came  from  the  most 
highly-populated  Member  States,  i.e.  Germany,  Italy,  France,  the  United  Kingdom, 
Spain  and  the  Netherlands,  which  together  accounted  for  more  than  half  the 
applications.  Even  in  2005,  the  share  of  applications  from  the  new  Member  States 
remained modest at 4.58%.  

5. 

Application of the exceptions to the right of access 

5.1. 

The percentage of initial applications receiving positive responses was very close to 
that of previous years at 68.24%. 

In  64.67%  of  cases  the  documents  were  disclosed  in  full,  while  in  3.57%  of  cases 
partial access was granted. 

This  percentage  does  not  take  account  of  the  large  number  of  applications  for 
documents  already  released  (about  one  in  five  applications).  About  2%  of  the 
applications concerned documents which did not exist. 

5.2. 

The percentage of decisions confirming the initial decision fell slightly from 73.21% 
to  68.44%.  This  means  that  in  31.56%  of  cases  the  applicant  was  granted  more 
extensive access after submitting a confirmatory application. 

The percentage of cases in which applications were granted in full after initial refusal 
fell  slightly  from  9.09%  to  8%.  There  was,  however,  a  substantial  increase,  from 
17.7% to 23.56%, in cases in which partial access was granted after initial refusal.  

The  percentage  of  positive  responses  at  the  end  of  the  procedure  (69.87%)  was 
almost exactly the same as in 2004 (70%). In 65.08 % of cases the documents were 
disclosed in full, while in 4.79 % of cases partial access was granted.  

5.3. 

The  main  reason  for  refusing  an  initial  application  continued  to  be  protecting  the 
purpose of inspections, investigations and audits (third indent of Article 4(2)). This 
was  the  grounds  for  41%  of  refusals,  as  against  31.81%  in  2004.  In  most  of  these 
cases the applications related to competition files or documents concerning ongoing 
infringement procedures. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
The  second  reason  for  refusals  was  protecting  the  Commission's  decision-making 
process  (Article  4(3)).  This  accounted  for  26.74%  of  refusals  as  against  25.44%  in 
2004.  

Protection of commercial interests was the reason cited for 7.39% of refusals at the 
initial stage, as against 8.33% in 2004.  

5.4. 

The main grounds for confirming refusal of access were the same as those for initial 
refusal: 

–  protecting the purpose of investigations (29.77%) and  

–  protecting the decision-making process (21.10%).  

However,  the  protection  of  commercial  interests  was  cited  more  frequently  in  the 
processing of confirmatory applications (13.9%). 

6. 

Complaints to the European Ombudsman 

6.1. 

In 2005 the Ombudsman closed nine files on complaints against the Commission for 
refusing to disclose documents. One complaint gave rise to a draft recommendation, 
which  the  Commission  followed  in  part.  The  Ombudsman  closed  the  case  with  a 
critical remark. Five complaints were settled to the satisfaction of the complainant. In 
one  of  these  cases  the  Ombudsman  made  a  critical  remark  but  it related  to  another 
aspect  of  the  complaint.  In  one  case  the  complainant  withdrew  his  application  for 
access. Two cases were closed without a finding of maladministration. 

6.1.1.  Complaint 2229/2003/MHZ 

This  complaint  concerned  an  environmental  infringement  procedure,  initiated 
following  a  complaint  from  an  NGO.  In  this  connection  the  NGO  contested  the 
refusal  to  disclose  documents  exchanged  with  the  Spanish  authorities  under  the 
procedure. 

The Ombudsman concluded that the refusal of access was not maladministration, but 
he made a critical remark concerning the length of the infringement procedure. 

6.1.2.  Complaint 2403/2003/MF 

A Member of the European Parliament applied for access to documents concerning 
two  infringement  proceedings  about  VAT  exemptions  for  the  Catholic  Church  in 
Spain  and  Portugal.  The  Commission  released  the  documents  on  these  two  cases 
apart  from  a  Legal  Service  opinion  and  the  documents  submitted  by  the  Member 
States  concerned,  who  opposed  disclosure.  The  Ombudsman  closed  the  complaint 
without finding maladministration on the Commission's part. 

6.1.3.  Complaint 948/2004/OV 

An  NGO  wished  to  see  the  Commission's  third  report  on  economic  and  social 
cohesion before it was adopted. An administrative problem held up the processing of 
the  application.  As  the  report  was  adopted  and  published  in  the  meantime,  the 
application became redundant.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
6.1.4.  Complaint 1368/2004/GG 

The  complainant,  a  company  participating  in  an  environmental  project  in  China 
whose contract had been terminated by the Commission, contested the refusal to give 
it access to documents concerning the services of the expert whom it had seconded. 
The  reason  for  refusal  was  protection  of  the  expert's  personal  data  and  commercial 
interests. The Ombudsman invited the Commission to reconsider its position and the 
Commission  partially  disclosed  thirteen  documents  with  the  personal  data  deleted, 
but  still  refused  to  disclose  three  other  documents.  The  Ombudsman  nevertheless 
closed the case with a critical remark.  

6.1.5.  Complaint 1798/2004/PB 

The  complainant  had  submitted  two  applications  for  access  to  documents.  One 
concerned security measures adopted after the attacks in Madrid on 11 March 2004 
and the other concerned discussions on harmonising the length of prison sentences. 
The complainant did not contest the content of the replies, but only the fact that the 
time limit of fifteen days for processing applications had been exceeded for his first 
application. When the Ombudsman had established that the matter had been settled, 
he closed the file with a remark.  

6.1.6.  Complaint 2821/2004/OV 

A  Greek  environmental  NGO  contested  the  partial  access  it  was  granted  by  the 
Commission  to  a  mission  report  on  the  implementation  of  a  Court  judgment  on  an 
infringement case. As the Commission had launched a new infringement procedure 
under Article 228 of the EC Treaty, part of the document had been masked to avoid 
prejudicing  the  ongoing  negotiations  with  the  Greek  authorities.  The  Ombudsman 
closed  the  complaint  and  found  that  there  had  been  no  maladministration  on  the 
Commission's part. 

6.1.7.  Complaint 3381/2004/TN 

This  complaint  also  concerned  an  environmental  infringement  procedure,  initiated 
following  a  complaint  from  a  residents'  association.  During  the  investigation,  the 
Commission  had  refused  access  to  documents  exchanged  with  the  UK  authorities. 
After  the  infringement  procedure  was  closed,  the  Commission  disclosed  its  own 
documents and the answers of the UK authorities after consulting them. As the affair 
had been settled to the complainant's satisfaction, the Ombudsman closed the file. 

6.1.8.  Complaint 116/2005/MHZ 

A  Member  of  the  European  Parliament  was  refused  access  to  a  letter  sent  by  the 
Portuguese  Ministry  of  Finance  under  a  procedure  concerning  excessive  deficits. 
When  the  Ombudsman  consulted  the  new  Portuguese  government,  it  made  no 
objection  to  disclosure  of  the  letter.  Following  the  Ombudsman's  recommendation, 
the Commission disclosed the letter. 

6.1.9.  Complaint 1777/2005/GG 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
A  German  lawyer  contested  OLAF's  refusal  of  access  to  the  file  on  an  ongoing 
investigation  of  a  project  in  Lesotho.  As  OLAF  closed  its  investigation  without 
further action, the complainant withdrew his application. 

6.2. 

Apart  from  complaints  116/2005/MHZ  and  1777/2005/GG,  described  above,  the 
Ombudsman  received  a  further  13  complaints  concerning  refusal  of  access  to 
documents in 2005. 

7. 

Court actions 

7.1. 

The  Court  of  First  Instance  handed  down two  judgments  and  three  orders  on  cases 
relating  to  Commission  decisions  completely  or  partially  refusing  access  to 
documents under Regulation 1049/2001. 

7.1.1.  Court  judgment  of  17  March  2005  in  case  T-187/03,  Isabella  Scippacercola  v 

Commission: 

The  Court  confirmed  that  the  right  of  a  Member  State  to  oppose  disclosure  of  a 
document  from  that  Member  State  under  Article  4(5)  of  the  Regulation  extends  to 
documents not drawn up by an authority of that State sent to one of the institutions 
by that State.  

7.1.2.  Court 

judgment 

of 

13  April 

2005 

in 

case  T-2/03,  Verein 

für 

Konsumenteninformation v Commission: 

The Court annulled the Commission's decision refusing access to the file on a cartel 
case,  pointing  out  that  the  institution  is  required  to  make  a  concrete,  individual 
assessment of the documents requested. However, in exceptional cases the institution 
may,  on  the  basis  of  the  principle  of  proportionality,  dispense  with  such  concrete, 
individual  assessment,  but  only  after  studying  all  the  other  possible  options  and 
giving  a  thorough  explanation  of  why  these  options  would  also  constitute  a 
disproportionate administrative burden. 

7.1.3.  Order  of  the  Court  of  8  June  2005  in  case  T-287/03,  Società  imballaggi  metallici 

Salerno Srl v Commission:  

This  case  concerned  access  to  correspondence  with  the  Italian  authorities  in 
connection  with  State  aid.  The  subject  of  the  case  was  identical  to  that  in  case 
T-76/02, Messina v. Commission, in which the Court had judged that, as the Italian 
authorities  had  opposed  disclosure  of  the  letters  which  they  had  sent  to  the 
Commission,  the  Commission  was  obliged  to  refuse  access.  The  Court  rejected  the 
action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. 

7.1.4.  Order of 15 June 2005 in case T-98/04 (same applicant as in the above case, together 

with other Italian enterprises): 

This case is linked to the preceding case, but the action concerned the annulment a 
Commission  decision  finding  State  aid  to  be  compatible  with  the  common  market. 
Under  this  procedure  the  applicants,  as  a  measure  of  organisation  of  procedure, 
applied for access to the letters concerning the aid scheme sent to the Commission by 
the Italian authorities. The application was dismissed as inadmissible. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
7.1.5.  Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 

2005 in case T-237/04, Ultradent Products Inc. v Commission: 

The case was removed from the register following withdrawal by the applicant. 

7.2. 

Thirteen  new  actions  against  Commission  decisions  under  Regulation  1049/2001 
were  submitted  in  2005.  Eleven  of  them  are  still  pending  while  one  has  been 
removed from the register and one declared inadmissible. 

7.2.1.  A.S.TER, case T- 409/056: 

The  applicant  is  a  company  in  which  the  main  shareholder  is  the  municipality  of 
Genoa.  It  wished  to  obtain  access  to  the  documents  which  had  given  rise  to  an 
investigation  of  a  suspected  infringement  of  Community  public  procurement  rules. 
Access  was  refused  on  the  grounds  that  disclosure  would  prejudice  the  ongoing 
investigation.  The  applicant  contests  the  application  of  this  exception  and  cites 
violation of the adversarial principle. 

7.2.2.  Borax Europe Ltd, cases T-121/05 and T-166/057: 

This action was submitted by an enterprise which contests the Commission's decision 
to refuse it access to documents and in particular to the sound recording of a group of 
experts' meeting to prepare the 30th adaptation to technical progress of the Directive 
on the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. In particular, 
the documents concern the classification of boric acid and borates. 

7.2.3.  Editions Odile Jacob, case T-237/058: 

The  applicant,  who  submitted  two  actions  for  annulment  of  Commission  decisions 
relating  to  a  merger,  also  submitted  an  application  for  access  to  documents 
concerning the concentration. Its action is against the decision refusing access. 

7.2.4. 

Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV, case T-141/059: 

The  applicant  is  an  NGO  active  in  the  humanitarian  field.  Following  the 
Commission's  termination  of  a  contract,  the  NGO  applied  for  full  access  to  the 
relevant  file.  The  Commission  granted  access  to  the  bulk  of  the  file,  but  withheld 
certain  documents  as  confidential.  The  applicant  submitted  a  complaint  to  the 
Ombudsman,  who  closed  the  complaint  with  a  critical  remark.  The  applicant  then 
repeated its application for full access to the file. As the Commission maintained its 
position, the applicant brought an action before the Court. 

7.2.5.  Muñiz, case T-144/0510: 

This application, submitted by a specialist lawyer, concerned access to the minutes of 
a  working  party  set  up  in  the  Customs  Code  Committee  and  to  other  documents 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

OJ C 22, 28.1.2006, p. 19. 
OJ C 143, 11.6.2005, p. 38; OJ C 155, 25.6.2005, p. 29. 
OJ C 205, 20.8.2005, p. 32. 
OJ C 143, 11.6.2005, p. 40. 
OJ C 132, 28.5.2005, p. 36. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
within  the  Committee's  competence.  The  Commission  refused  to  disclose  the 
documents as they concerned matters on which no decision had yet been taken.  

7.2.6.  MyTravel, case T-403/0511: 

The  applicant,  under  the  name  "Airtours  plc",  had  obtained  annulment  of  a 
Commission decision on a merger12. As part of a claim for damages for the harm it 
had  allegedly  suffered13,  the  applicant  applied  for  access  to  the  report  drawn  up 
within  the  Commission  following  annulment  of  the  merger  decision,  and  to 
associated documents. The action is for the decision refusing access to some of the 
documents to be annulled. 

7.2.7.  Navigazione Libera del Golfo, cases T-109/05 and T-444/0514: 

The  navigation  company  submitted  two  applications  for  access  to  data  concerning 
the extra costs involved in the operation by a competing company of a sea transport 
service  under  a  public  service  arrangement.  This  information  is  contained  in  a 
confidential version of the decision on aid notified by the Italian authorities, but was 
deleted from the public version of the decision.  

7.2.8.  Nomura, case T- 233/0515: 

The applicant submitted an action against a Commission decision on State aid in the 
Czech Republic and applied for access to the preparatory file for this decision. The 
Commission  rejected  the  application  on  the  basis  of  the  following  exceptions: 
protection of the investigation, which was not closed as an appeal had been lodged 
against the decision, the Czech authorities' opposition to disclosure of the documents 
which they had sent to the Commission and protection of internal deliberations. The 
applicant  contests  the  grounds  for  the  refusal  and  invokes  an  overriding  public 
interest in the disclosure.  

7.2.9.  Verband der Internationalen Caterer in Deutschland eV, case T-5/0516: 

The applicant brought an action against the Commission's decision, on the grounds of 
opposition  from  the  German  authorities,  to  refuse  access  to  an  application  from 
Germany to introduce derogating measures under the Sixth VAT Directive  

This case was removed by Court order of 27 January 200717.  

7.2.10.  Weber, case T-290/0518: 

11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

OJ C 10, 14.1.2006, p. 29. 
Case T-342/99 Airtours v Commission. 
Case T-212/03 MyTravel v Commission. 
OJ C 106, 30.4.2005, p. 43; OJ C 48, 25.2.2006, p. 40. 
OJ C 217, 3.9.2005, p. 46. 
OJ C 82, 2.4.2005, p. 32. 
OJ C 69, 24.3.2007, p. 29. 
OJ C 257, 15.10.2005, p. 12. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This action concerns access to the file on an investigation of the financing of public 
radio  broadcasting  bodies  in  Germany.  The  applicant  asked  the  Court  to  issue  an 
order directing the Commission to disclose the documents. 

By order of the Court of 11 December 2006 the action was dismissed as manifestly 
inadmissible. 

7.2.11.  Williams, case T-42/0519: 

The applicant, a university assistant, applied for access to documents relating to the 
drafting  of  legislation  on  genetically  modified  organisms.  She  contests  the  partial 
access granted to her. 

8. 

Conclusion 

Growing  public  interest  in  access  to  unpublished  Commission  documents  was 
confirmed in 2005. As in previous years, a large proportion of the applications (more 
than 40%) came from enterprises, NGOs, law firms and a variety of interest groups. 

The overall picture that emerges from analysis of access applications is that a large 
proportion  of  them  relate  to  Commission  monitoring  of  the  application  of 
Community law. In a very large number of cases access was applied for in order to 
obtain documents likely to support the applicant's position in a complaint concerning, 
for  example,  an  alleged  infringement  of  Community  law  or  an  administrative  or 
judicial  action.  These  applications  generally  relate  to  large  volumes  of  documents, 
analysis of which gives rise to a substantial administrative burden. 

investigations, 

the  commercial 

The  most  frequent  grounds  for  refusal  are protection  of  the  following  interests:  the 
purpose  of 
the 
Commission's decision-making process. The latter exception is cited more to protect 
decision-making  on  individual  issues  than  the  legislative  process.  In  the  legislative 
field,  more  and  more  documents  are  made  available  to  the  public  directly,  without 
waiting  for  applications  for  access.  The  Commission's  Directorates-General  have 
developed  their  websites  on  specific  policies  and  have  used  them  to  make  a  large 
number of documents publicly available.  

interests  of  enterprises  and 

Most  of  the  complaints  closed  by  the  Ombudsman  in  2005  were  settled  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  complainant.  The  number  of  complaints  to  the  Ombudsman 
concerning  application  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1049/2001  remained  stable  in  2005 
despite the increase in applications for access. 

The Court of First Instance confirmed its earlier rulings on two points: 

–  Member  States  are  entitled  to  oppose  disclosure  of  documents  which  they  have 

sent to an institution and 

–  there  is  a  requirement  in  principle  for  concrete,  individual  assessment  of 

documents to which access is requested. 

19 

OJ C 93, 16.4.2005, p. 34. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Court also clarified that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 concerns public access 
to  documents  and  the  particular  interest  that  may  be  cited  by  an  applicant  is  not 
relevant to evaluation of the validity of a decision to refuse access. 

* * * * * 

* 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 

Statistics relating to the application of Regulation No 1049/2001 

2002-2005 

CONTENTS OF THE REGISTER  

COM 

C 

OJ 

PV 

SEC 

Total 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

1.956 

5.389

2.095 

6.478

2.338 

6.823

2.327 

7.484

2.152 

7.313

Total 

10.868 

33.487

-

134

135

134

129

532

-

4.773 

12.118

116

113

145

126

500

3.066 

11.889

2.467 

11.876

2.718 

12.808

2.674 

12.394

15.698 

61.085

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INITIAL REQUESTS 

1. 

Number of initial requests 

2002 

991 

2003 

1 523 

2004 

2 600 

2. 

Number of identifiable documents taken into consideration  

2002 

2 150 

2003 

2 936 

2004 

4 051 

3. 

Number of initial requests for which partial access was granted 

2002 

44 

2003 

64 

2004 

105 

2005 

3 173 

2005 

4 534 

2005 

122 

4. 

Rate of positive replies during the initial stage 

2002 

Full access 

Partial access 

Total 

66.5 

2003 

66.83 

2.48 

69.31 

2004 

64.8 

3.39 

68.19 

2005 

64.67 

3.57 

68.24 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONFIRMATORY REQUESTS 

5. 

Number of confirmatory requests 

2002 

96 

2003 

143 

2004 

162 

2005 

167 

6. 

Breakdown of decisions on confirmatory requests (%) 

Confirmation  

Partial revision 

Full revision 

2002 

66.9 

9.2 

23.9 

2003 

61.57 

8.29 

30.13 

7. 

Rate of positive replies for the procedure as a whole 

Full access 

Partial access 

Total 

2002 

62.4 

8.3 

70.7 

2003 

69.5 

3.32 

72.82 

2004 

73.21 

17.70 

9.09 

2004 

65.45 

4.58 

70.00 

2005 

68.44 

23.56 

8.0 

2005 

65.08 

4.79 

69.87 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
BREAKDOWN OF REQUESTS 

8. 

According to professional profile of requesters (%) 

Members  of  the  public 
whose professional profile 
was not indicated 

society 

Civil 
(interest 
groups.  industry,  NGOs. 
etc.) 

Lawyers 

Academics 

Other EU institutions 

Public  authorities  (other 
than the EU institutions) 

Journalists 

2002 

31.8 

2003 

30.16 

2004 

32.15 

2005 

31.89 

17.8 

23.48 

27.31 

29.44 

22.4 

12.3 

3.1 

8.6 

3.8 

20.46 

11.15 

6.16 

5.57 

13.65 

11.23 

5 

11.00 

10.49 

3.78 

10.15 

12.32 

3.02 

0.5 

1.07 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
9. 

According to geographical origin (%) 

Belgium 

Germany 

Italy 

France 

Not specified 

United Kingdom 

Spain 

Netherlands 

Denmark 

Austria 

Greece 

Ireland 

Portugal 

Poland 

Sweden 

Finland 

Switzerland 

United States 

Luxembourg 

Czech Republic 

Hungary 

Norway 

Slovakia 

Malta 

2002 

23 

10.9 

9.6 

10.3 

12.3 

8.8 

5.4 

6.4 

1.6 

2.1 

1.2 

2 

1.2 

1.3 

0.5 

2003 

25.05 

12 

8.85 

7.80 

12.59 

7.87 

5.25 

6.30 

2.36 

0.98 

1.97 

1.38 

0.59 

1.18 

0.59 

0.4 

1.11 

2004 

26.42 

12.77 

10.35 

8.62 

5.65 

8 

5.69 

4.96 

2.08 

1.73 

1.54 

1.19 

1.38 

1.58 

1.19 

0.69 

0.62 

0.92 

0.65 

0.5 

0.73 

0.35 

0.27 

0.27 

2005 

22.63 

13.24 

9.77 

9.71 

7.44 

6.62 

5.52 

5.29 

2.14 

1.92 

1.92 

1.70 

1.54 

1.48 

1.10 

0.88 

0.85 

0.69 

0.66 

0.63 

0.60 

0.44 

0.38 

0.35 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lithuania 

Latvia 

Bulgaria 

Slovenia 

Cyprus 

Canada 

Romania 

Estonia 

Liechtenstein 

Turkey 

Croatia 

Russia 

Brazil 

China (incl. Hong Kong) 

Israel 

Mexico 

Albania 

Egypt 

Iceland 

India 

Japan 

Macedonia (FYROM) 

Taiwan 

Ukraine 

0.19 

0.08 

0.04 

0.23 

0.31 

0.12 

0.12 

0.15 

0.15 

0.12 

0.04 

0.12 

0.04 

0.04 

0.28 

0.28 

0.25 

0.19 

0.16 

0.16 

0.16 

0.13 

0.09 

0.09 

0.09 

0.06 

0.06 

0.06 

0.06 

0.06 

0.03 

0.03 

0.03 

0.03 

0.03 

0.03 

0.03 

0.03 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU countries 

Not specified 

European countries not 
members of the EU 
(including candidate 
countries) 

84.7 

12.3 

1.7 

Non-European countries 

1.3 

Candidate countries 

83.35 

12.59 

0.93 

0.99 

2.14 

91.58 

89.13 

5.65 

1.24 

1.24 

0.27 

7.50 

2.10 

1.24 

0.54 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
10. 

According to areas of interest (%) 

Competition 

Secretariat-General, 
Cabinets 
advisors 

and 

Policy 

Environment 

Internal market 

Transport and energy 

Taxation and customs 
union 

Justice, freedom and 
security 

Enterprise policy 

Agriculture 

Regional policy 

External aid and 
development 

Health and consumer 
protection  

Employment and social 
affairs 

Administration, personnel 
and recruitment 

Budget and internal audit 

Enlargement 

Economic and financial 
affairs 

External relations  

Legal questions  

2002 

12.7 

15.9 

6.2 

10.3 

2.9 

10.6 

2.2 

3.9 

4.8 

0.8 

0.9 

4.4 

3.2 

3.2 

2.9 

1 

1.1 

2.1 

3 

19 

2003 

13.7 

10.62 

7.41 

8.79 

3.54 

10.82 

2004 

14.58 

8.66 

7.23 

8.5 

5.54 

7.5 

2005 

12.70 

9.41 

8.19 

8.01 

6.37 

6.27 

2.3 

3.81 

4.70 

3.08 

4.59 

2.16 

2.56 

3.31 

5.15 

2.96 

2.39 

4.63 

4.44 

3.91 

3.06 

4 

2.38 

2.68 

3.48 

4.15 

2.62 

3.21 

2.35 

2.23 

2.82 

1.25 

1.57 

2.16 

2.3 

2.19 

1.31 

1.92 

2.5 

2.81 

2.11 

1.99 

1.92 

1.92 

1.92 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
Information technology 
and media 

External trade 

Fisheries 

Fraud protection 

Research and technology 

Education and culture 

Press and communication 

Statistics 

Interpretation and 
translation 

1.1 

0.6 

2.4 

1.7 

0.5 

0.8 

0.1 

0.8 

2.03 

0.72 

2.23 

1.97 

1.18 

1.05 

0.39 

- 

0.88 

1.83 

2.27 

1 

2.12 

1.92 

1.38 

0.69 

0.15 

0.31 

1.67 

1.64 

1.39 

1.36 

1.07 

0.69 

0.32 

0.25 

Official publications  

- 

0.07 

0.04 

0.03 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
BREAKDOWN OF REFUSALS OF ACCESS ACCORDING TO THE EXCEPTION APPLIED 

11. 

Initial requests (%) 

2002 

2003 

Public security 

- 

Defence 
matters 

and  military 

0.46 

0.21 

0.31 

5.33 

1.05 

4.39 

8.89 

9 

1.8 

0.46 

5.2 

3.7 

3.7 

2004 

0.36 

0.72 

4.84 

8.06 

5.20 

8.33 

8.15 

2005 

0.29 

0.14 

4.08 

2.53 

3.31 

7.39 

8.59 

35.9 

37.55 

31.81 

41.03 

11.82 

9.10 

5.96 

10.57 

14.87 

2.6 

12.60 

14.50 

3.73 

8.6 

2.1 

International relations 

Financial,  monetary  or 
economic policy 

Personal data 

Commercial interests 

Court  proceedings 
legal advice 

and 

Inspections,  investigations 
and audits 

Decision not taken 

Internal deliberations 

Confidentiality 
requested 
by  the  Member State  from 
which 
document 
originates 

the 

No  reply  or 
motivation 

inadequate 

19.6 

6.07 

4.48 

2.68 

Note: 

In  the  column  for  2002,  the  cases  in  which  several  exceptions  were 
applied  are  not  included  in  the  breakdown  according  to  the  exception 
applied; in the other columns all the exceptions are identified. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
12. 

Confirmatory requests (%) 

2002 

2003 

- 

- 

7.2 

- 

0.6 

3.3 

4.4 

- 

- 

7.76 

- 

6.85 

11.87 

14.61 

2004 

0.35 

4.21 

8.07 

9.12 

15.79 

5.61 

2005 

- 

- 

5.01 

0.56 

10.31 

13.09 

11.14 

29.4 

30.14 

26.32 

29.25 

1.6 

4.4 

3.65 

14.61 

10.5 

12.98 

8.77 

8.77 

8.08 

12.81 

9.75 

Public security 

Defence 
matters 

and  military 

International relations 

Financial,  monetary  or 
economic policy 

Personal data 

Commercial interests 

Court  proceedings  and 
legal advice 

Inspections, 
investigations and audits 

Decision not taken 

Internal deliberations 

Confidentiality  requested 
by the Member State from 
document 
which 
originates 

the 

Note: 

In  the  column  for  2002,  the  cases  in  which  several  exceptions  were 
applied  are  not  included  in  the  breakdown  according  to  the  exception 
applied; in the other columns all the exceptions are identified.  

EN 

22 

   EN