Report from the Commission on the application in 2008 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents
Date: 2009-07-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament, access to EU information, application of EU law, provision of documents

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 2.7.2009 
COM(2009) 331 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the application in 2008 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 2008 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to 
European Parliament, Council and Commission documents 

FOREWORD 

This report, which covers 2008, was drawn up pursuant to Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) 
No  1049/2001  regarding  public  access  to  European  Parliament,  Council  and  Commission 
documents1. 

The  annex  to  this  report  contains  statistics  on  the  processing  of  access  applications.  The 
statistics refer only to access applications to unpublished documents and do not cover orders 
for published documents or requests for information. 

1. 

Transparency Policy2 

On  30 April  2008  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  to  amend  the  Regulation 
regarding public access to documents. This was in follow-up to a public consultation 
held in 2007 on the basis of a Green Paper3 and responded to a frequently expressed 
wish  of  the  European  Parliament.  The  two  branches  of  the  legislative  authority 
examined it over the second half of the year. 

2. 

Registers and Internet Sites 

2.1. 

2.2. 

At  the  end  of  2008,  the  register  of  Commission  documents  recorded  102 582 
documents (see table at annex). 

Article 9(3) of the Regulation states that documents classified as “sensitive”4 may be 
recorded in the register only with the consent of the originator. In 2008 no sensitive 
document within the meaning of this provision was included in the register. 

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 

1 
2 

3 
4 

OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. 
For further information on transparency policy, see the Bulletin of the European Union at the following 
address: http://europa.eu/bulletin/en/200804/p101006.htm#anch0006 
COM (2007) 185 of 18 April 2007.  
"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 

 
 
                                                 
Total 

Monthly 
average 

40 845

3 404 

57 419

4 785 

72 410

6 034 

3. 

Cooperation with the other institutions and the Member States 

The  departments  of  the  three  institutions  responsible  for  implementing  the 
Regulation continued their forum for discussing legal issues concerning application 
of the Regulation in 2008. 

4. 

Analysis of access applications 

4.1. 

The constant increase in the number of initial applications since the Regulation was 
adopted  was  again  observed  in  2008,  with  1001  applications  more  than  in  2007,  a 
25% increase. 

4.2. 

The  number  of  confirmatory  applications  fell  appreciably:  156  such  applications 
were registered in 2008 as against 273 in 2007. 

4.3.  With  regard  to  the  breakdown  of  applications  by  area  of  interest,  transport  and 
energy,  the  internal  market,  competition,  cooperation  in  judicial  matters,  the 
environment and enterprise policy accounted for nearly 40% of applications.  

4.4. 

4.5. 

The breakdown of applications by social and occupational categories confirmed 
the significance of applications from the academic world, which remained the largest 
single category, accounting for more than 30% of the total. 

Lastly,  the  geographical  breakdown  of  applications  remained  constant.  Almost 
20% of applications came from persons or 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  half  the  applications  (49.86%). 
The share of applications from the new Member States remained modest.  

5. 

Application of exceptions to the right of access 

5.1. 

The percentage of initial applications receiving positive responses has risen sharply 
(by nearly 10%) compared with the previous year. 

In 82.68% of cases (compared with 72.71% in 2007) the documents were disclosed 
in full, while in 3.33% of cases (compared  with 3.88%  in 2007) partial  access was 
granted. 

5.2. 

The  percentage  of  decisions  confirming  the  initial  position  fell  steeply  (down  by 
nearly 20% from 66.30% of cases in 2007 to 48.08% in 2008). 

The percentage of cases in which applications were granted in full after initial refusal 
rose  slightly  (18.59%  against  15.38%  in  2007).  The  percentage  of  cases  in  which 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
partial  access  was  granted  after  initial  refusal,  on  the  other  hand,  almost  doubled 
(33.33%, as against 18.32% in 2007).  

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)),  with  a  slight  increase  on  2007  (26.63%  of  refusals  against 
23.48% in 2007);  

protecting  the  Commission's  decision-making  process  (Article  4(3)),  with  a 
percentage of 15.22% for cases concerning opinions for internal use and 13.5% 
for those where the decision had still to be taken, totalling 28.72% of refusals 
(against a total of 31.31% in 2007).  

The proportion of refusals based on protection of commercial interests and protection 
of international relations remained significant at 14.4% (against 10.79% in 2007) and 
10.24% (against 10.98% in 2007) of the total. 

5.4. 

The main grounds for confirming refusal of access were: 

–  protection of the purpose of investigations (27.85%, against 24.75% in 2007); 

–  protection of commercial interests (24.89% against 25.5% in 2007); 

–  protecting the Commission's decision-making process, with a percentage of 17.3% 
for cases where the decision had still to be taken and 12.24% for those concerning 
opinions for internal use, totalling 29.54% of refusals (against a total of 17.4% in 
2007). 

6. 

Complaints to the European Ombudsman 

6.1. 

In 2008 the Ombudsman closed the following 16 complaints against the Commission 
for refusing to disclose documents5: 

Four cases closed without a finding of maladministration 

3006/2004/BB 

3114/2004/IP 

576/2005/GG 

1129/2007/MF 

Five cases closed with a critical remark and/or other remark 

3303/2005/GG  

1881/2006/JF 

3208/2006/GG 

255/2007/PB 

2681/2007/PB 

Seven cases closed without further action 

101/2004/GG 

2465/2004/TN 

3090/2005/GK 

3492/2006/WP 

3824/2006/GG 

1452/2007/PB 

2420/2007/BEH 

6.2. 

In  the  course  of  the  year  the  Ombudsman  dealt  with  14  complaints  concerning 
refusal to disclose documents. 

5 

See http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/decision/en/default.htm for details.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7. 

Court action 

7.1. 

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

7.1.1.  Court  judgment  of  30  January  2008  in  case  T-380/04,  Ioannis  Terezakis  v 

Commission 

The  Court  annulled  in  part  the  Commission  decision  refusing  access  to  two 
documents:  an  audit  report  and  a  contract  concluded  between  Athens  airport  and  a 
consortium.  

The Court found that the refusal to disclose the audit report was justified as the report 
was protected during the whole of the investigation/audit proceedings.  

As to the contract, some  of the information in it had already been  disclosed by  the 
Commission so the Court found that this information at least should have been given 
to  the  applicant.  The  Court  therefore  annulled  in  part  the  Commission  decision 
because it refused partial access to the contract. 

7.1.2.  Court  judgment  of  5  June  2008  in  case  T-141/05,  Internationaler  Hilfsfonds  v 

Commission 

The  Court  upheld  the  Commission's  arguments  and  dismissed  the  action  for 
annulment  as  inadmissible,  confirming  that  the  disputed  act  constituted  a  decision 
that  merely  confirmed  a  previous  decision  which  was  not  challenged  within  the 
prescribed period.  

It  clearly  distinguished  between  the  Ombudsman  procedure  and  the  judicial 
procedure,  and  confirmed  that  these  were  two  alternative  avenues.  The  Court  also 
said  that  a  decision  of  the  Ombudsman,  even  where  he  finds  that  there  has  been  a 
case  of  maladministration,  cannot  constitute  a  new  factor  enabling  the  applicant  to 
lodge  an  action  for  annulment  against  a  decision  confirming  an  earlier  decision 
because the prescribed period has elapsed. 

The applicant has lodged an appeal with the Court of Justice against this judgment. 

7.1.3.  Court  judgment  of  9  September  2008  in  case  T-403/05,  MyTravel  Group  plc  v 

Commission 

The  Court  confirmed  two  decisions  (except  in  the  case  of  one  document)  of  the 
Commission  refusing  access  to  competition-related  documents  on  the  basis  of  a 
number of exceptions ("decision-making process", "legal advice" and "investigations 
and audits"). It did, however, annul part of the decision concerning refusal of access 
to  a  document  on  the  basis  of  the  "investigations"  exception,  finding  that  the 
arguments for refusing this document were too vague.  

In particular, the Court noted that: 

–  in the case of the decision-making process, institutions must be allowed to protect 
their  internal  consultations  and  deliberations  where  it  is  necessary  in  the  public 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
interest  in  order  to  safeguard  their  ability  to  carry  out  their  tasks  in  particular 
when they are exercising their administrative decision-making powers; 

–  given  that  the  Regulation  concerns  public  access  to  document,  individual  or 
private interests do not constitute an element which is relevant to the weighing up 
of interests as provided for in that Regulation. 

Sweden has lodged an appeal with the Court of Justice against this judgment. 

7.1.4.  Court  judgment  of  10  September  2008  in  case  T-42/05,  Rhiannon  Williams  v 

Commission 

In this case the applicant entered two main pleas: firstly, an implicit refusal to give 
access  to  documents  that  "had  to  exist"  and,  secondly,  misinterpretation  and 
misapplication  of  the  exceptions  to  refuse  access  to  documents  identified  in  the 
disputed decision.  

As  regards  the  first,  the  Court  annulled  the  Commission's  decision,  noting  that  the 
institutions  had  an  obligation  to  assist  the  applicant  with  her  request  and,  if  the 
request was still not clear despite this assistance, the institution had to be precise as 
failure  to  be  so  might  constitute  an  implicit  refusal  of  access  to  non-identified 
documents.  Implicit  refusal  was  still  a  refusal  without  stating  reasons,  and  could 
therefore be annulled on those grounds alone. 

The  Court  upheld  the  Commission's  decision  in  full  on  the  explicitly  refused 
documents. 

7.1.5.  Court judgment of 18 December 2008 in case T-144/05, Pablo Muñiz v Commission 

The  Court  annulled  the  Commission's  refusal  to  grant  access  to  documents  of  a 
comitology  procedure  relating  to  tariff  classification  on  the  basis  of  the  exception 
relating to the decision-making process. 

It  allowed  that  protection  of  the  decision-making  process  against  targeted  external 
pressure  might  constitute  a  legitimate  ground  for  restricting  access  to  documents. 
Nevertheless,  the  reality  of  such  external  pressure  had  to  be  established  with 
certainty  and  it  be  shown  that  there  was  a  reasonably  foreseeable  risk  that  the 
decision to be taken would be substantially affected owing to that external pressure. 

7.2. 

23  new  actions,  including  four  appeals,  against  Commission  decisions  under 
Regulation 1049/2001 were submitted in 20086:  

Case C-506/08 P  
Sweden/other parties: 
MyTravel Group plc, 
Commission 

Case C-362/08 P, 
Internationaler Hilfsfonds 
e.V./ other party: 
Commission 

Case C-281/08 P, 
Landtag Schleswig-
Holstein/ Commission 

Case C-28/08 P, 
Commission/other party: 

Case T-509/08,  
Ryanair Ltd v 

Case T-500/08, 
Ryanair Ltd v 

6 

See http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en for details. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Bavarian Lager Co. 
Ltd 

Case T-499/08, 
Ryanair Ltd v Commission 

Case T-496/08,  
Ryanair Ltd v Commission 

Case T-474/08,  
Dieter C. Umbach v 
Commission 

Commission 

Commission 

Case T-498/08,  
Ryanair Ltd v 
Commission 

Case T-495/08,  
Ryanair Ltd v 
Commission 

Case T-437/08,  
CDC Hydrogene 
Peroxide Cartel Damage 
Claims (CDC Hydrogene 
Peroxide) v Commission 

Case T-497/08, 
Ryanair Ltd v 
Commission 

Case T-494/08, 
Ryanair Ltd v 
Commission 

Case T-383/08,  
New Europe v 
Commission 

Case T-380/08,  
Netherlands v Commission 

Case T-362/08,  
IFAW Internationaler 
Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH 
v Commission 

Case T-344/08,  
EnBW Energie Baden-
Württemberg AG v 
Commission 

Case T-342/08,  
Edward William Batchelor 
v Commission 

Case T-250/08, Edward 
William Batchelor v 
Commission 

Case T-221/08,  
Guido Strack v 
Commission 

Case T-186/08,  
Liga para Protecção da Natureza (LPN) v 
Commission 

Case T-29/08, 
Liga para Protecção da Natureza 
(LPN) v Commission 

8. 

Conclusions 

8.1. 

Characteristics of requests and reasons for refusals 

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  in  an 
administrative or judicial action concerning, for example, a Commission decision on 
competition  policy.  These  applications  generally  relate  to  large  volumes  of 
documents, analysis of which gives rise to a substantial administrative burden. 

It should also be noted that the exception relating to protection of the Commission's 
decision-making  process  is  cited  mainly  to  protect  decision-making  on  individual 
issues. In the legislative field, more and  more documents are made available to the 
public  directly,  without  waiting  for  access  applications.  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.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
The  exception  concerning  the  protection  of  commercial  interests  is  mainly  cited  in 
connection with requests for access to competition policy documents. 

These  trends,  which  have  become  more  marked  over  the  years,  guided  the 
Commission’s thinking when it drew up the proposed amendments to the Regulation. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
8.2. 

Developments in case-law 

The Court of First Instance confirmed its earlier rulings on a number of 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; 

–  the  investigation/audit  exception  applies  throughout  the  investigation/audit 

proceedings. 

The Court also clarified other points: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

the Ombudsman procedure is distinct from the judicial procedure, these being 
alternative procedures; 

institutions  must  be  allowed  to  protect  their  internal  consultations  and 
deliberations, notably against targeted external pressure, where it is necessary 
in the public interest in order to safeguard their ability to carry out their tasks in 
particular  when  they  are  exercising  their  administrative  decision-making 
powers;  

nevertheless,  they  had  to  establish  the  reality  of  such  external  pressure  with 
certainty  and  show  that  there  was  a  reasonably  foreseeable  risk  that  the 
decision  to  be  taken  would  be  substantially  affected,  particularly  in  the 
legislative field; 

implicit refusal was still refusal without stating reasons, and could therefore be 
annulled on those grounds alone. 

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 

2007 

2008 

1 956 

5 389

2 095 

6 478

2 338 

6 823

2 327 

7 484

2 152 

7 313

2 454 

6 628

2 431 

6 647

2 295 

8 882

Total 

15 753 

46 762

INITIAL REQUESTS 

2. 

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS 

-

134

135

134

129

129

129

131

790

-

4 773 

12 118

116

113

145

126

380

717

747

3 066 

11 889

2 467 

11 876

2 718 

12 808

2 674 

12 394

3 032 

12 623

3 255 

13 179

3 640 

15 695

1 597

21 985 

102 582

2006 

3841 

2007 

4196 

2008 

5197 

3. 

RESPONSES  

2006 

2007 

2008 

nbr 

% 

nbr 

% 

nbr 

% 

2836 

73.83

3051 

72.71 

4314 

82.68

892 

113 

23.22

982 

23.40 

703 

13.99

2.94

163 

3.88 

180 

3.33

total 

3841 

100.00

4196 

100.00 

5197 

100.00

Positive 

Refusal 

Partial access 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
CONFIRMATORY REQUESTS 

4. 

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS 

2006 

140 

2007 

273 

2008 

156 

5. 

RESPONSES 

2006 

2007 

2008 

nbr 

% 

nbr 

% 

nbr 

% 

97 

31 

12 

69.29

181 

22.14

8.57

50 

42 

66.30

18.32

15.38

75 

52 

29 

48.08

33.33

18.59

140 

100.00

273 

100.00

156 

100.00

Confirmation 

Partial revision 

Full revision 

total 

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 

2006 
1.53 

2007 
1.19 

2008 
0.18 

0.60 

7.06 

1.19 

4.85 

8.94 

7.49 

2.23 

0.82 

10.98 

10.24 

1.26 

2.9 

5.04 

10.79 

6.08 

5.98 

14.4 

6.52 

30.72 

23.48 

26.63 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
4.3. 1st indent – Decision-making process, 
no decision yet taken 
4.3. 2nd indent – Decision-making process, 
decision already taken: Opinions for 
internal use as part of deliberations and 
preliminary consultations 
4.5. Refusal by Member State 

14.30 

12.02 

13.5 

19.06 

19.29 

15.22 

4.26 

7.64 

3.62 

total

100.00 

100.00 

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 indent – Decision-making process, 
no decision yet taken  
4.3. 2nd indent – Decision-making process, 
decision already taken: Opinions for 
internal use as part of deliberations and 
preliminary consultations 
4.5. Refusal by Member State 

2006 

2007 

2008 

0.00 

0.49 

3.40 

0.97 

13.59 

0.9 

0.4 

2.2 

0.4 

4.8 

0.42 

0.42 

5.91 

0.84 

5.06 

16.50 

25.25 

24.89 

10.19 

4.8 

3.8 

27.18 

24.75 

27.85 

7.77 

5.7 

17.3 

9.71 
10.19 

11.7 
19.1 

12.24 
1.27 

Total

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
BREAKDOWN OF REQUESTS 

8. 

ACCORDING TO SOCIAL AND OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE OF REQUESTERS (%) 

2006 
32.08 

2007 
31.85 

2008 
31.03 

17.27 

17.77 

18.26 

16.55 

15.33 

16.75 

15.67 

15.69 

14.19 

Academics 

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

Members of the public whose profile 
was not indicated 

Public authorities (other than the EU 
institutions) 

Lawyers 

Other EU institutions 

Journalists 

10.43 

6.85 

1.14 

9.69 

6.75 

2.90 

2007 

19.86 

15.58 

8.18 

9.32 

5.76 

5.92 

4.42 

1.76 

2.8 

1.16 

2.41 

11.01 

6.3 

2.46 

2008 

18.93 

16.89 

8.54 

8 

6.34 

5.29 

4.83 

2.63 

2.61 

2.61 

2.57 

9. 

ACCORDING TO GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN (%) 

Belgium 

Germany 

Italy 

France 

United Kingdom 

Spain 

Netherlands 

Other 

Luxembourg 

Not specified 

Poland 

2006 

20.26 

18.67 

8.41 

9.31 

5.73 

5.33 

5.35 

0.63 

2.15 

1.64 

2.61 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
  
Denmark 

Austria 

Greece 

Portugal 

Sweden 

Ireland 

Czech Republic 

Switzerland 

Finland 

United States 

Hungary 

Lithuania 

Romania 

Norway 

Bulgaria 

Slovenia 

Latvia 

Liechtenstein 

Slovakia 

Japan 

Cyprus 

Malta 

China (incl. Hong Kong) 

Estonia 

Russia 

Mexico 

1.55 

3.18 

1.2 

1.31 

1.24 

1.15 

1.08 

0.77 

0.78 

0.89 

0.95 

1.21 

0.2 

0.51 

0.25 

0.31 

0.2 

0.12 

0.37 

0.18 

0.26 

0.49 

0.08 

0.37 

0.11 

0.02 

1.23 

2.71 

1.5 

1.18 

1.46 

0.82 

0.89 

0.82 

1.43 

0.61 

0.86 

0.55 

0.96 

0.32 

0.94 

1.8 

0.14 

0.45 

0.59 

0.2 

0.25 

0.45 

1.01 

0.29 

0.05 

0.05 

2.45 

2.11 

1.93 

1.5 

1.44 

1.28 

1.26 

1.18 

1.08 

1.02 

0.86 

0.62 

0.58 

0.36 

0.36 

0.32 

0.28 

0.28 

0.24 

0.24 

0.22 

0.2 

0.14 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Croatia 

Ukraine 

New Zealand 

Australia 

Brazil 

Turkey 

Canada 

Israel 

South Africa 

FYROM 

Albania 

Iceland 

Egypt 

0.22 

0.14 

0.15 

0.05 

0.22 

0.15 

0.09 

0.08 

0.05 

0.03 

0.43 

0.04 

0.07 

0.04 

0.12 

0.25 

0.12 

0.04 

0.02 

0.02 

0.14 

0.08 

0.08 

0.08 

0.06 

0.06 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.02 

0.02 

0 

0 

EU countries  

Candidate countries  

Other 

Not specified 

2006 

93.93 

0.22 

3.49 

2.37 

2007 

92.28 

0.12 

4.55 

3.05 

2008 

99.46 

0 

0 

0.54 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
10. 

ACCORDING TO AREAS OF INTEREST (%) 

Directorate-General / Service 
SG – Secretariat General 
TREN – Energy and Transport 
MARKT – Internal market 
COMP – Competition 
JLS – Justice, Freedom and Security 
ENV – Environment 
ENTR – Enterprise 
SANCO – Health and Consumer Protection 
TAXUD – Taxation and Customs Union 
ADMIN – Personnel and Administration 
EMPL – Employment and Social Affairs 
AGRI – Agriculture 
REGIO – Regional Policy 
TRADE – Trade 
RELEX – External Relations 
INFSO – Information Society 
SJ – Legal Service 
DEV – Development 
AIDCO – EuropeAid Cooperation Office 
ELARG – Enlargement 
EAC – Education and Culture 
RTD – Research 
ECFIN – Economic and Financial Affairs 
FISH – Fisheries 
BUDG – Budget 
COMM – Communication 
OLAF – European Anti-fraud Office 
CAB – Commissioners' private offices 
DGT – Directorate-General for Translation 
ADMIN (OIB) 
EPSO – Recruitment Office 
ESTAT – Eurostat 
PMO – Office for Administration and Payment 
of Individual Entitlements 
ECHO – Humanitarian Office  
JRC – Joint Research Centre 
IAS – Internal Audit Service 
BEPA – Bureau of European Policy Advisers 
OPOCE – Publications Office 

2007 
10.19 
7.54 
6.46 
7.32 
8.45 
6.11 
5.48 
4.27 
4.82 
2.34 
3.1 
4.11 
3.69 
2.48 
4.09 
2.21 
1.34 
2.12 
1.27 
3.18 
1.58 
1.64 
1.07 
0.95 
1.31 
0.73 
0.45 
0.16 
0.4 
0.22 
0.08 
0.24 
0.13 

0.21 
0.02 
0.1 
0.06 
0.03 

2008 
9.38 
8.18 
7.28 
7.18 
6.69 
6.07 
5.91 
5.74 
5.17 
4.08 
3.72 
3.6 
3.42 
2.72 
2.39 
2.3 
1.75 
1.67 
1.55 
1.5 
1.4 
1.23 
1.23 
1.13 
1.07 
0.85 
0.62 
0.43 
0.32 
0.28 
0.23 
0.22 
0.18 

0.15 
0.13 
0.07 
0.07 
0.05 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
SCIC – Joint Interpreting and Conference 
Service 
DIGIT 
FC – Financial Control 
Total 

0.02 

0.03 
0.02 
100 

0.02 

0 
- 
100 

EN 

17 

   EN