Report from the Commission on the application in 2006 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents
Date: 2007-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament, access to EU information, application of EU law, provision of documents

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.12.2007 
COM(2007) 841 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the application in 2006 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to 
European Parliament, Council and Commission documents 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the application in 2006 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to 
European Parliament, Council and Commission documents 

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 2006 is the fifth report submitted by the Commission under this provision. 

The  annex  to  this  report  contains  statistics  on  the  processing  of  applications  for  access.  A 
series  of  tables  provide  figures  for  the  last  three  years  of  application  of  the  Regulation, 
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to  unpublished  documents  and  do  not  cover  orders  for  published  documents  or  requests  for 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 

The debate on the revision of the legislation on public access to documents, launched 
by a decision of principle taken on 9 November 2005, continued throughout 2006. In 
particular, 
the  public 
consultation that took place in 2007. 

internally  on  preparing  for 

the  Commission  worked 

2. 

ONLINE REGISTERS AND SITES 

2.1. 

2.2. 

1 
2 

At  the  end  of  2006,  the  register  of  Commission  documents  recorded  73 708 
documents (see annexed table). 

Article  9(3)  of  the  Regulation  provides  that  documents  defined  as  "sensitive"2  may 
be  recorded  in  the  register  only  with  the  consent  of  the  originator.  In  2006  no 
sensitive document within the meaning of this provision was included in the register. 

OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. 
"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)). 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.3. 

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 

71 241

5 937

109 780

9 148

131 124

10 927

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 2006. 

The  departments  of  the  three  institutions  responsible  for  implementing  the 
Regulation continued their forum for discussing legal issues concerning application 
of the Regulation. 

4. 

ANALYSIS OF ACCESS APPLICATIONS 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

The constant increase in the number of initial applications since the Regulation was 
adopted was again observed in 2006, when 3841 initial applications were registered 
by departments, 445 more than in 2005. 

The  number  of  confirmatory  applications  fell  appreciably;  140  such  applications 
were registered in 2006 as against 233 in 2005. 

There  was  little  change  in  the  breakdown  of  applications  by  area  of  interest, 
except  that  the  number  of  applications  concerning  cooperation  in  judicial  matters 
nearly  doubled.  Competition,  cooperation  in  judicial  matters,  the  environment,  the 
internal market and transport and energy accounted for nearly 40% of applications. 

The  breakdown  of  applications  by  social  and  occupational  categories  reveals  a 
significant  increase  in  applications  from  the  academic  world,  accounting  for  over 
30% of the total. 

Finally the geographical breakdown of applications remained constant. Over 20% 
of 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,  France,  Italy,  the  United  Kingdom,  the 
Netherlands and Spain, which together accounted for just over half the applications. 
The share of applications from the new Member States remained modest, despite a 
slight increase for most of them. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
5. 

APPLICATION OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT OF ACCESS 

5.1. 

The  percentage  of  initial  applications  receiving  positive  responses  increased 
compared with previous years. 

In  73.83%  of  cases  the  documents  were  disclosed  in  full,  while  in  2.94%  of  cases 
partial access was granted. 

5.2. 

The  percentage  of  decisions  confirming  the  initial  decision  increased  slightly 
(69.29% of cases compared with 68.24% in 2005). 

The percentage of cases in which applications were granted in full after initial refusal 
also increased slightly (8.57% as against 7.30% in 2005). The percentage of cases in 
which partial access was granted after initial refusal, on the other hand, fell slightly 
(22.14%, as against 24.46% in 2005). 

5.3. 

The two main reasons for refusing an initial application continued to be: 

–  protecting  the  purpose  of  inspections,  investigations  and  audits  (third  indent  of 
Article 4(2)), although significantly down on 2005 (30.72% of refusals, as against 
41.80% in 2005); 

–  protecting  the  Commission's  decision-making  process  (Article  4(3)),  with  a 
percentage of 19.06% for cases concerning opinions for internal use and 14.30% 
for those where the decision had still to be taken, totalling 33.36% of refusals.  

Protection of commercial interests was the reason cited for 8.94% of refusals at the 
initial stage, as against 7.78% in 2005. 

5.4. 

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

–  protecting the purpose of investigations (27.18%); 

–  protecting the decision-making process (17.48%). 

Protection  of  commercial  interests  was  cited  in  16.50%  of  the  cases  of  refusal 
(compared  with  14.32  %  in  2005),  a  marked  increase.  The  same  applies  for 
protection of personal data (13.59% compared with 10.61% in 2005). 

6. 

COMPLAINTS TO THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN 

6.1. 

In  2006  the  Ombudsman  closed  seven  files  on  complaints  against  the  Commission 
for refusing to disclose documents. In five of these cases the Ombudsman closed the 
case  with  a  critical  remark.  Two  cases  were  closed  without  a  finding  of 
maladministration. 

6.1.1.  Complaint 617/2003/IP: 

A  company  that  took  part  in  a  call  for  tenders  but  failed  to  win  the  contract  was 
refused access to the documents contained in the bids of the other tenderers. These 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
included documents that were public in a Member State but for which a charge was 
made; access was refused on the basis of the principle of loyal cooperation between 
the  institution  and  the  Member  State  concerned  as  set  out  in  the  Regulation.  The 
Ombudsman  took  the  view  that  the  Commission  had  not  applied  the  Regulation 
correctly and closed the case with two critical remarks, one on the decision to refuse 
access  and  the  other  on  the  failure  to  abide  by  the  time  limit  for  handling  the 
application. 

6.1.2.  Complaint 1764/2003/ELB: 

The complainant wanted access to an audit report on counterpart funds in support of 
structural  adjustment  in  Niger.  When  asked  by  the  Ombudsman  to  reconsider  its 
position, the Commission disclosed part of the report. The Ombudsman nevertheless 
closed the case with a critical remark, considering the document register inadequate. 

6.1.3.  Complaint 3531/2004/PB: 

A  law  firm  was  refused  access  to  a  document  sent  to  the  Commission  by  the  UK 
authorities on the grounds that these authorities opposed disclosure. The Ombudsman 
concluded  that  the  Commission  had  applied  the  Regulation  correctly  as  regards 
refusing  access.  But  he  still  closed  the  case  with  a  critical  remark  concerning  the 
Commission's failure to abide by the time limit for handling the application. 

6.1.4.  Complaint 582/2005/PB: 

An  ONG  wanted  access  to  a  document  relating  to  a  dispute  settlement  proceeding 
before  a  panel  of  the  World  Trade  Organisation  (WTO)  Dispute  Settlement  Body. 
The  Commission  refused  access,  citing  the  exception  for  court  proceedings.  The 
Ombudsman  took  the  view  that  this  exception  could  not  be  applied  to  the  WTO 
dispute settlement procedure and closed the case with a critical remark. 

6.1.5.  Complaint 1463/2005/TN: 

The  complainant,  a  lawyer,  wanted  to  be  given  access  to  CO2  emission  quota 
allocation  plans  that  had  already  been  approved  at  a  time  when  certain  plans  were 
still  awaiting  approval.  The  Commission  refused  access  (on  the  basis  of  the 
exceptions  relating  to  the  protection  of  the  decision-making  process  and  ongoing 
investigations) as long as all the plans had not been approved, but sent them to the 
applicant  after  they  had  been  approved.  The  Ombudsman  took  the  view  that  the 
Commission  had  not  applied  the  Regulation  correctly  and  closed  the  case  with  a 
critical remark. 

6.1.6.  Complaint 260/2006/BU 

The complainant had applied for access to the documents relating to the revision of 
Directive  91/414/EEC  concerning  the  placing  of  plant  protection  products  on  the 
market.  The  Commission  refused  access  to  some  documents  on  the  ground  that 
disclosure would seriously undermine the Commission's decision-making process. In 
his  decision  the  Ombudsman  found  that  the  Commission  had  taken  steps  to  satisfy 
the applicant and therefore closed the case without making any remark. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
6.1.7.  Complaint 2654/2006/PB: 

The complainant had requested access to two experts' reports from 2006 concerning 
the  fight  against  organised  crime  and  the  general  state  of  the  judicial  system  in 
Bulgaria.  Because  of  an  administrative  error  the  application  was  not  processed  on 
time.  The  Commission  admitted  that  because  of  this  error  the  application  had  not 
been handled in an appropriate manner. As the application had been dealt with in the 
meantime, the Ombudsman closed the case without any remark. 

6.2. 

In the course of 2006 the Ombudsman received five complaints concerning refusal to 
disclose documents. 

7. 

COURT ACTIONS 

7.1. 

The  Court  of  First  Instance  handed  down  two  judgments  on  cases  relating  to 
Commission  decisions  completely  or  partially  refusing  access  to  documents  under 
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 

7.1.1. 

Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2006, Case T-237/02, Technische Glaswerke 
Ilmenau (TGI) v Commission: 

The Court annulled the Commission decision refusing access to a file on a state aid 
proceeding,  pointing  out  that  the  institution  is  required  to  conduct  a  concrete, 
individual  examination  of  the  content  of  the  documents  requested.  However,  the 
institution  can  dispense  with  such  an  examination  where,  due  to  the  particular 
circumstances of the individual case, it is obvious that access must be refused or, on 
the  contrary,  granted.  Also,  only  in  exceptional  cases  and  where  the  administrative 
burden entailed by a concrete, individual examination of the documents proves to be 
particularly heavy, thereby exceeding the limits of what may reasonably be required, 
may a derogation from the obligation to examine the documents be permissible. The 
Commission has lodged an appeal with the Court of Justice against this judgment. 

7.1.2. 

Judgment of the Court of 6 July 2006, Joined Cases T-391/03 and T-70/04, Franchet 
and Byk v Commission: 

The  Court annulled in part an  OLAF decision and a Commission  decision  refusing 
access  to  investigation  (OLAF)  and  audit  (Commission)  reports,  stating  that  the 
"exception based on the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and 
audits"  applies  only  if  disclosure  of  the  documents  in  question  may  endanger  the 
completion of inspections, investigations or audits. The Court added that various acts 
of  investigation  or  inspection  may  remain  covered  by  this  exception  as  long  as  the 
investigations  or  inspections  continue,  even  if  the  particular  investigation  or 
inspection which gave rise to the report to which access is sought is completed. 

The Court also confirmed that the purpose of the Regulation is to guarantee access 
for  everyone  to  documents  and  not  merely  access  for  the  requesting  party  to 
documents  concerning  him.  Consequently,  the  particular  interest  which  may  be 
asserted  by  a  requesting  party  in  obtaining  access  to  a  document  concerning  him 
personally cannot be taken into account to justify disclosure. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
7.2. 

The  Court  of  First  Instance  also  handed  down  a  judgment  in  a  case  relating  to  a 
Commission  decision  on  a  competition  matter  that  is  worth  mentioning  here  as  the 
Court establishes a link between the competition rules and the rules of transparency. 
This was the judgment of 30 May 2006 in Case T-198/03 Bank Austria Creditanstalt 
AG v Commission. 

The  Court  found  that  the  competition  rules  afford  special  protection  to  information 
that  has  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Commission  in  the  performance  of  its 
functions  and  that,  by  its  nature,  is  covered  by  professional  secrecy,  which  is  a 
broader concept than business secrets. 

In  this  connection  the  Court  stated  that  a  distinction  should  be  made  between  the 
protection  that  must  be  afforded  to  information  covered  by  the  obligation  of 
professional secrecy in relation to parties having a right to be heard in the context of 
proceedings  applying  the  competition  rules,  and  that  which  should  be  afforded  to 
such  information  in  relation  to  the  general  public.  The  Commission  may 
communicate  to  such  parties  certain  information  covered  by  the  obligation  of 
professional secrecy in so far as it is necessary to do so for the proper conduct of the 
investigation. However, that possibility does not apply to business secrets, which are 
afforded very special protection. Conversely, information covered by the obligation 
of  professional  secrecy  cannot  be  disclosed  to  the  general  public,  irrespective  of 
whether business secrets or other confidential information are involved. 

7.3. 

Five  new  actions  were  brought  in  2006  against  Commission  decisions  under 
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Three of them are still pending, while one has been 
declared inadmissible and one has been removed from the register. 

7.3.1.  Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission, Case T-236/063: 

The  application  is  from  the  Parliament  of the German Land  of Schleswig-Holstein, 
which  would  like  to  have  access  to  a  document  containing  a  legal  analysis  of  the 
Community's competence in the field of the retention of personal data by operators of 
electronic  communications  networks.  Access  was  partially  refused  on  the  grounds 
that  disclosure  would  undermine  protection  of  the  Commission's  legal  advice.  The 
applicant contests the application of this exception and also argues that the principle 
of loyal cooperation between institutions has been breached. 

7.3.2.  Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission, Case T-68/07 (ex C-406/06): 

This action relates to the same application as mentioned above. On 14 June 2007 the 
Court ordered the action to be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. 

7.3.3.  Meyer-Falk v Commission, Case T-251/06 JA (Judicial assistance)4: 

This action concerns the same documents as are referred to in point 6.1.7. It relates to 
the decision refusing access and not the administrative procedure.  

3 
4 

OJ C 261, 28.10.2006, p.24 
OJ C 281, 18.11.2006, p.39. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7.3.4. 

S. Leclercq v Commission, Case T-299/065: 

The  applicant  is  seeking  access  to  an  extract  from  the  databases  containing 
information  relating  to  the  Commission's  staff.  Her  request  was  rejected  on  the 
grounds that it was outside the scope of Regulation No 1049/2001 in that it was not 
an application for access to an existing document held by the institution, within the 
meaning of that Regulation. 

7.3.5.  Eurostrategies SPRL v Commission, Case T-203/066: 

The applicant is a company wishing to gain access to certain documents concerning a 
tendering procedure for a project to be carried out in Poland. The case was removed 
from the register by order of the Court of 1 December 2006. 

8. 

CONCLUSIONS 

As in past years, 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. 

It should be added that as in past years too, the exception relating to protection of the 
Commission's decision-making process 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. 

Most of the complaints closed by the Ombudsman in 2006 prompted critical remarks. 
Apart  from  the  cases  where  applications  were  not  handled  within  the  time  limits, 
these  remarks  reveal  divergences  in  the  interpretation  of  the  provisions  of  the 
regulation,  on  which  only  the  Community  courts  can  give  a  definitive  ruling.  The 
number of complaints to the Ombudsman relating to application of Regulation (EC) 
No 1049/2001 fell sharply in 2006 (five complaints compared with fifteen in 2005). 

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

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

documents to which access is requested; 

–  the specific interest that an applicant may claim is not relevant for assessing the 

validity of a decision refusing access. 

5 
6 

OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p.59. 
OJ C 224, 16.9.2006, p.51. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Court also clarified two other points: 

–  the  "investigation"  exception  applies  for  as  long  as  the  investigations  or 
inspections continue, even if the particular investigation or inspection which gave 
rise to the document to which access is sought is completed; 

–  information covered by professional secrecy may not be disclosed to the general 
public, irrespective of whether business secrets or other confidential information 
are involved. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Statistics relating to the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 

ANNEX 

1. 

CONTENTS OF THE REGISTER 

COM 

C 

OJ 

PV 

SEC 

Total 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

1 956 

5 389

2 095 

6 478

2 338 

6 823

2 327 

7 484

2 152 

7 313

2 454 

6 628

Total 

13 322 

40 115

-

134

135

134

129

129

661

-

4 773 

12 118

116

113

145

126

380

880

3 066 

11 889

2 467 

11 876

2 718 

12 808

2 674 

12 394

3 032 

12 623

18 730 

73 708

INITIAL REQUESTS 

2. 

NUMBER OF REQUESTS 

2004 (1)  

3 093 

2005 (1) 

3 396 

2006 

3 841 

3. 

REPLIES  

Positive 

Refusal 

Partial access 

2004 (1) 

2005 (1) 

2006 

nbr 

% 

nbr 

% 

nbr 

% 

2 005 

64.82

2 188 

64.43

2 836 

73.83 

981 

31.72

1 084 

31.92

892 

23.22 

107 

3.46

124 

3.65

113 

2.94 

3 093  100.00

3 396  100.00

3 841  100.00 

total 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
CONFIRMATORY REQUESTS 

4. 

NUMBER OF REQUESTS 

2004 (1) 

219 

2005 (1) 

233 

2006 

140 

5. 

REPLIES 

2004 (1) 

2005 (1) 

2006 

nbr 

% 

nbr 

% 

nbr 

% 

157 

71.69

159 

68.24

40 

22 

18.26

10.05

57 

17 

24.46

7.30

97 

31 

12 

69.29 

22.14 

8.57 

Confirmation 

Partial revision 

Full revision 

total 

219 

100.00

233 

100.00

140 

100.00 

(1)  These  figures  differ  appreciably  from  those  in  earlier  reports  as  a  result  of  the 
clarification  of  the  definition  of  requests  that  is  now  applied  for  processing  data 
records. 

BREAKDOWN OF REFUSALS BY EXCEPTION APPLIED (%) 

6. 

INITIAL REQUESTS 

4.1.a Protection of the public interest – 1st 
indent – public security 
4.1.a Protection of the public interest – 2nd 
indent - defence and military matters 
4.1.a Protection of the public interest – 3rd 
indent - international relations 
4.1.a Protection of the public interest – 4th 
indent - financial, monetary or economic 
policy 
4.1.b. Protection of the privacy and the 
integrity of the individual 
4.2. 1st indent - Protection of commercial 
interests 
4.2. 2nd indent - Protection of court 
proceedings and legal advice 
4.2. 3rd indent -. Protection of inspections, 
investigations and audits 
4.3. 1st subparagraph - No decision yet taken 
– undermining of decision-making process 

2004 
0.28 

0.75 

5.04 

8.40 

5.79 

8.78 

8.50 

2005 
0.28 

0.21 

4.17 

2.55 

3.68 

7.78 

8.63 

2006 
1.53 

0.60 

7.06 

1.19 

4.85 

8.94 

7.49 

33.24 

41.80 

30.72 

11.02 

12.73 

14.30 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
4.3. 2nd subparagraph - Opinions for internal 
use as part of deliberations and preliminary 
consultations 
4.5 Refusal by Member State 

total

15.41 

14.36 

19.06 

2.80 
100.00 

3.82 
100.00 

4.26 
100.00 

7. 

CONFIRMATORY REQUESTS 

4.1.a Protection of the public interest – 1st 
indent – public security 
4.1.a Protection of the public interest – 2nd 
indent - defence and military matters 
4.1.a Protection of the public interest – 3rd 
indent - international relations 
4.1.a Protection of the public interest – 4th 
indent - financial, monetary or economic 
policy 
4.1.b. Protection of the privacy and the 
integrity of the individual 
4.2. 1st indent - Protection of commercial 
interests 
4.2. 2nd indent - Protection of court 
proceedings and legal advice 
4.2. 3rd indent - Protection of inspections, 
investigations and audits 
4.3.1st subparagraph - No decision yet taken 
– undermining of decision-making process 
4.3. 2nd subparagraph - Opinions for internal 
use as part of deliberations and preliminary 
consultations 
4.5 Refusal by Member State 

total

2004 

2005 

2006 

0.34 

0.00 

4.76 

7.82 

9.52 

0.00 

0.00 

5.31 

0.00 

0.49 

3.40 

0.53 

0.97 

10.61 

13.59 

15.31 

14.32 

16.50 

5.78 

10.88 

10.19 

25.85 

28.38 

27.18 

12.59 

7.96 

7.77 

9.52 
8.50 
100.00 

12.47 
9.55 
100.00 

9.71 
10.19 
100.00 

BREAKDOWN OF REQUESTS 

8. 

ACCORDING TO SOCIAL AND OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE OF REQUESTERS (%) 

Academics 

2004 
11.23 

2005 
10.49 

2006 
32.08 

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

Members of the public whose 
profile was not indicated 

27.31 

29.44 

17.27 

32.15 

31.89 

16.55 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Public authorities (other than 
the EU institutions) 
Lawyers 

Other EU institutions 

10.15 

13.65 

5.00 

12.32 

11.00 

3.78 

15.67 

10.43 

06.85 

Journalists 

0.5 

1.07 

01.14 

9. 

ACCORDING TO GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN (%) 

Belgium 
Germany 
France 
Italy 
United Kingdom 
Netherlands 
Spain 
Austria 
Poland 
Luxembourg 
Not specified 
Denmark 
Portugal 
Sweden 
Lithuania 
Greece 
Ireland 
Czech Republic 
Hungary 
United States 
Finland 
Switzerland 
Other 
Norway 
Malta 
Slovakia 
Estonia 
Slovenia 
Cyprus 
Bulgaria 
Turkey 
Croatia 

EN 

2005 
22.63 
13.24 
9.71 
9.77 
6.62 
5.29 
5.52 
1.92 
1.48 
0.66 
7.44 
2.14 
1.54 
1.10 
0.28 
1.92 
1.70 
0.63 
0.60 
0.69 
0.88 
0.85 

0.44 
0.35 
0.38 
0.13 
0.19 
0.16 
0.25 
0.09 
0.09 

2006 
20.26 
18.67 
09.31 
08.41 
05.73 
05.35 
05.33 
03.18 
02.61 
02.15 
01.64 
01.55 
01.31 
01.24 
01.21 
01.20 
01.15 
01.08 
0.95 
0.89 
0.78 
0.77 
0.63 
0.51 
0.49 
0.37 
0.37 
0.31 
0.26 
0.25 
0.22 
0.22 

2004 
26.42 
12.77 
8.62 
10.35 
8,00 
4.96 
5.69 
1.73 
1.58 
0.65 
5.65 
2.08 
1.38 
1.19 
0.19 
1.54 
1.19 
0.5 
0.73 
0.92 
0.69 
0.62 

0.35 
0.27 
0.27 
0.15 
0.23 
0.31 
0.04 
0.12 
0.04 

13 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
Latvia 
Romania 
Japan 
Canada 
Australia 
Ukraine 
Liechtenstein 
Russia 
Israel 
China (incl. Hong Kong) 
FYROM7 
Albania 
Brazil 
Iceland 
Mexico 
Egypt 
India 
Taiwan 

EU countries 

Candidate countries  

Other 

Not specified 

0.08 
0.12 
0.04 
0.12 

0.15 
0.12 

0.04 

2004 

91.58 

0.27 

2.48 

5.65 

0.28 
0.16 
0.03 
0.16 

0.03 
0.09 
0.06 
0.06 
0.06 
0.03 
0.03 
0.03 
0.06 
0.03 
0.06 
0.03 
0.03 
0.03 

2005 

89.13 

0.54 

3.34 

7.50 

10. 

ACCORDING TO AREAS OF INTEREST (%) 

Competition 

Secretariat-General,  Cabinets  and 
European Policy Advisers 
Justice, freedom and security 

Environment 

Internal market 

Transport and energy 

2004 
14.58 

8.66 

3.81 

7.23 

8.5 

5.54 

2005 
12.70 

9.41 

4.70 

8.19 

8.01 

6.37 

0.20 
0.20 
0.18 
0.15 
0.15 
0.14 
0.12 
0.11 
0.09 
0.08 
0.08 
0.05 
0.05 
0.03 
0.02 

2006 

93.93 

0.22 

3.49 

2.37 

2006 
09.85 

09.48 

08.85 

06.88 

06.68 

06.45 

7 

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
                                                 
Taxation and customs union 

Enterprise and industry 

Administration, personnel and 
recruitment 
Employment and social affairs  

Health and consumer protection 

External aid and development 

Regional policy 

Agriculture 

Enlargement 

External relations 

External trade 

Budget and internal audit 

IT and information society 

Education and culture 

Research and technology 

Legal matters 

Economic and financial affairs 

Fisheries 

Press and communication 

Fraud protection 

Statistics 

Interpreting and translation 

Official publications 

7.5 

3.31 

2.35 

4.15 

2.38 

2.39 

2.96 

5.15 

1.31 

2.5 

2.27 

2.19 

0.88 

1.38 

1.92 

2.81 

1.92 

1 

0.69 

2.12 

0.15 

0.31 

0.04 

6.27 

4.63 

2.23 

2.62 

2.68 

3.06 

3.91 

4.44 

1.99 

1.92 

1.67 

2.11 

1.83 

1.07 

1.36 

1.92 

1.92 

1.64 

0.69 

1.39 

0.32 

0.25 

0.03 

04.73 

04.67 

03.71 

03.60 

03.38 

03.35 

03.20 

03.09 

03.06 

02.84 

02.27 

02.12 

02.11 

02.11 

01.49 

01.46 

01.21 

01.00 

0.92 

0.68 

0.58 

0.17 

0.06 

EN 

15 

   EN