Report on the Commission on the application in 2009 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents
Date: 2010-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament, access to information, document, provision of documents, report

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 30.6.2010 
COM(2010)351 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the application in 2009 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 2009 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to 
European Parliament, Council and Commission documents 

FOREWORD 

This  report,  which  covers  2009,  was  drawn  up  pursuant  to  Article 17(1)  of  Regulation 
to  European  Parliament,  Council  and 
(EC) No  1049/2001  regarding  public  access 
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statistics refer only to access applications to unpublished documents and do not cover orders 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. 

Revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 

The  Commission  proposal,  presented  on  30  April  2008,  was  examined  by  the 
Council Information Group. 

On  11  March  2009,  the  European  Parliament  voted  on  the  report  by  its  LIBE 
Committee (Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs), presented by 
Mr  Cashman,  which  contained  a  large  number  of  amendments  to  the  Commission 
proposal. However, Parliament postponed the vote on the legislative resolution. The 
proposal  is  therefore  still  at  the  first  reading  stage.  The  new  Parliament  which 
emerged  from  the  June  2009  elections  continued  the  parliamentary  work  on  the 
proposal. 

2. 

Registers and internet sites 

2.1. 

2.2. 

In  2009,  18 063  new  documents  were  added  to  the  register  of  Commission 
documents (see table in annex). 

Article 9(3) of the Regulation states that documents defined as “sensitive”2 may be 
recorded in the register only with the consent of the originator. In 2009 no sensitive 
document within the meaning of this provision was included in the register. 

2.3. 

The  table  below  shows  the  statistics  for  2009  on  consultation  of  the  Openness  and 
Access to Documents website on EUROPA. 

1 
2 

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 

                                                 
Number of visitors 

Number of sessions 

Pages viewed 

Total 

Monthly average 

44.538 

3.712 

61.823 

5.152 

84.094 

7.008 

3. 

Cooperation with the other institutions and the Member States 

The Interinstitutional Committee, provided for in Article 15(2) of the Regulation, 
met  at  political  level  on  15  December  2009  at  the  instigation  of  the  Swedish 
Presidency  of  the  Council  with  a  view  to  looking  in  particular  at  ways  of  further 
facilitating access by citizens to the documents held by the EU institutions. 

The following suggestions were made at this meeting:  

(1) the Committee should meet at least once a year at political level, and the results 
of its discussions should be made public;  

(2)  the  Committee's  work  should  be  based  on  preparatory  work  carried  out  by  the 
competent departments of the various institutions;  

(3) the Committee should discuss the possibility of:  

-  combining  on  a  single  web  page  all  links  to  websites  relating  to  access  to  the 
documents of the three institutions; 

- ensuring that the public registers of the institutions complement each other, thereby 
improving user-friendliness and the accessibility of documents; 

-  gradually  aligning  the  search  engines  of  the  institutions  (in  this  respect,  the 
advisability  and  feasibility  of  a  common  indexing  method  for  documents  might  be 
examined in order to create a common search function); 

-  broadening  the  PreLex3  database  to  cover  all  the  documents  produced  by  the 
institutions involved in the legislative process, while taking account of the possibility 
of supplementing PreLex with Œil4; 

-  improving  the  accessibility  of  all  the  documents  connected  with  a  particular 
legislative dossier by grouping them all together; 

-  in  relation  to  the  above  point,  carrying  out  a  preliminary  study  in  2010  of  the 
legislative dossiers identified as priorities in terms of EU communication efforts; 

(4)  when  an  institution  intends  to  set  up  a  new  electronic  storage  system  or 
considerably  change  its  existing  system,  it  should  take  account  of  the  impact  on 
access rights, and its approach should promote the objective of transparency. 

3 
4 

Database of the Publications Office of the European Union. 
Database of the European Parliament. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
In addition, the departments of the three institutions responsible for implementing the 
Regulation continued their forum for discussing legal issues concerning application 
of the Regulation in 2009. 

4. 

Analysis of access applications 

4.1. 

4.2. 

The  number  of  initial  applications  remained  stable  in  2009  (5 055  applications 
compared with 5 197 in 2008). 

The number of confirmatory applications fell slightly: 134 in 2009 as against 156 
in 2008. 
A  large  number  of  applications  concerned  entire  files  relating  to  various 
administrative procedures. 

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

4.4. 

4.5. 

The  breakdown  of  applications  by  socioprofessional  profile  confirmed  the 
significance  of  applications  from  the  academic  world,  which  remained  the  largest 
single category, albeit smaller than in 2008 (21.29% of applications compared with 
31.03% in 2008). 

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 
the 
highly-populated  Member  States, 
United Kingdom and the Netherlands, which together accounted for almost half the 
applications  (49.75%).  The  share  of  applications  from  the  new  Member  States 
remained modest.  

i.e.  Germany,  France, 

Italy,  Spain, 

5. 

Application of exceptions to the right of access 

5.1. 

The percentage of initial applications receiving positive responses was higher than in 
2008. 

In 84.23% of cases (compared with 82.68% in 2008) the documents were disclosed 
in full, while in 4.11% of cases (compared  with 3.33%  in 2008) partial  access was 
granted. 

5.2. 

The  percentage  of  decisions  confirming  the  initial  position  –  which  had  already 
fallen  considerably  in  2008  –  again  fell  significantly  in  2009  (by  over  25%,  from 
48.08% of the total in 2008 to 22.50% in 2009). 

The  percentage  of  cases  in  which  applications  were  granted  in  full  after  an  initial 
refusal  virtually  tripled  (50%  as  against  just  18.59%  in  2008).  The  percentage  of 
cases in which partial access was granted after an initial refusal fell slightly (27.50%, 
as against 33.33% in 2008).  

5.3. 

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

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

protecting the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits (third indent of 
Article 4(2)), with a slight increase on 2008 (27.61% of refusals compared with 
26.63% in 2008);  

protecting  the  Commission's  decision-making  process  (Article  4(3)),  with  a 
percentage  of  17.80%  for  cases  where  the  decision  had  still  to  be  taken  and 
7.81%  for  those  concerning  opinions  for  internal  use,  totalling  25.61%  of 
refusals (compared with a total of 28.72% in 2008).  

The percentage of refusals based on the protection of commercial interests remained 
significant: 13.99% of refusals (14.4% in 2008). 

5.4. 

The main grounds for confirming refusal of access were: 

–  protection  of  the  purpose  of  investigations  (25.91%  compared  with  27.85%  in 

2008); 

–  protection of commercial interests (17.52% compared with 24.89% in 2008); 

–  protecting  the  Commission's  decision-making  process,  with  a  percentage  of 
12.77%  for  cases  where  the  decision  had  still  to  be  taken  and  13.87%  for  those 
concerning opinions for internal use, totalling 26.64% of refusals (compared with 
a total of 29.54% in 2008). 

–  Refusal  based  on  the  outright  opposition  of  the  Member  State  is  no  longer  used 
since  the  Court5  ruled  that  Article 4(5)  of  the  Regulation  does  not  confer  on  the 
Member  State  a  general  and  unconditional  right  of  veto  so  that  it  could  in  a 
discretionary manner oppose the disclosure of documents originating from it. The 
Member State is required to state the reasons for its objection with reference to the 
exceptions  provided  for  in  the  Regulation;  only  these  exceptions  can  constitute 
grounds for refusal.  

6. 

Complaints to the European Ombudsman 

6.1. 

In 2009 the Ombudsman closed the following 16 complaints against the Commission 
for refusing to disclose documents6: 

2 cases closed without a finding of maladministration 

1906/2007/VIK 

97/2008/BEH 

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

429/2007/PB  

488/2007/PB 

672/2007/WP 

819/2007/PB 

70/2008/TS 

443/2008/JMA 

1010/2008/AL 

1059/2008/WP 

1190/2008/DK 

3085/2008/GG 

2/2009/MHZ 

5 
6 

Cf. judgment of the Court of 18 December 2007 in Case C-64/05P Sweden v Commission. 
For detailed information on these cases, see http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/home.faces 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3 cases closed without further action  

3824/2006/GG 

1452/2007/PB 

2420/2007/BEH 

6.2. 

In  the  course  of  the  year  the  Ombudsman  dealt  with  12  complaints  concerning 
refusal to disclose documents. 

7. 

Court action 

7.1. 

The  Court  of  First  Instance  handed  down  two  judgments  on  cases  relating  to 
Commission decisions partially refusing access to documents under Regulation (EC) 
No 1049/2001. These were the judgments of 11 March 2009 in Cases T-121/05 and 
T-166/05, Borax Europe Ltd v Commission. 

In these judgments, the Court set aside the Commission decisions refusing access to 
various documents relating to a meeting of a group of scientific experts specialised in 
the toxic effects of chemicals on human reproduction. The experts were appointed by 
Member States but took part in the meetings in their capacity as experts and not as 
Member States’ representatives. 

With regard to the Commission's argument that revealing the identity of the experts, 
and the opinions they had expressed at the meeting, would considerably undermine 
their integrity by exposing them to unjustified external pressure, the Court found that 
the contested decisions contained only general grounds and that the Commission had 
not provided relevant evidence which could demonstrate the existence of this risk. 

In  relation  to  the  "decision-making  process"  exception  also  invoked  by  the 
Commission,  the  Court  stated  that  scientific  opinions  collated  by  an  institution  in 
order to produce a "legislative" text should in principle be divulged even if they were 
likely  to  cause  controversy  or  dissuade  the  persons  who  had  expressed  them  from 
contributing to the decision-making process of that institution. The risk, invoked by 
the  Commission,  that  a  public  debate  arising  from  the  divulging  of  their  opinions 
would dissuade experts from taking part in its decision-making process was inherent 
in  the  rule  recognising  the  principle  of  access  to  documents  containing  opinions 
designed for internal use in the context of preliminary consultations and discussions, 
which obviously included consultations involving experts. 

The Court therefore set aside the contested decisions on the grounds that the reasons 
for refusal were too general. 

7.2. 

Six  new  appeals  were  brought  in  2009  against  Commission  decisions  under 
Regulation (EC) No 1049/20017. 

Case T-59/09, 
Germany v Commission  

Affaire T-245/09,  
Shell Hellas Oil and 
Chemical SA (Shell 

Case  T-251/09, Société 
des Pétroles Shell SAS v 
Commission9 

7 

For details, see http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Hellas AE) c/ 
Commission8  

Case T-337/09,  
Colegio Oficial de 
Farmacéuticos de Valencia 
v Commission  

Case T-411/09,  
Ioannis Terezakis v 
Commission  

Case T-467/09, 
Dierk Stelzer 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 requested 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.  

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

8.2. 

Developments in case-law 

The Court of First Instance has confirmed its case-law on the following points: 

– 

– 

an  excessively  general  reason  for  refusal  leading  to  the  exclusion  of  a  whole 
category of documents is, in itself, insufficient to justify the application of an 
exception; 

the institution must prove that there is a risk of an adverse effect in the case in 
question,  and  this  risk  must  be  reasonably  foreseeable  and  not  simply 
hypothetical; 

8 
9 

Removed from the register, order of 5.1.2010. 
Removed from the register, order of 5.1.2010. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
  
                                                                                                                                                         
– 

with  respect  to  "legislative"  activities,  the  case-law  of  the  Court  of  First 
Instance is consistent with the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Turco10 
case. 

10 

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 1 July 2008, joined cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 [2008] ECR I-
4723. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

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

ANNEX  

1. 

NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS ENTERED IN THE REGISTER 

COM 

C 

OJ 

PV 

SEC 

Total 

2009 

1970 

11940

131

92

3931 

18063

INITIAL REQUESTS 

2. 

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS 

2007 

4196 

2008 

5197 

2009 

5055 

3. 

REPLIES  

Positive 

Refusal 

Partial access 

2007 

2008 

2009 

No 

% 

No 

% 

No 

% 

3051 

72.71

4314 

82.68 

4258 

84.23

982 

163 

23.40

703 

13.99 

589 

11.65

3.88

180 

3.33 

208 

4.11

Total 

4196 

100.00

5197 

100.00 

5055 

100.00

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
CONFIRMATORY REQUESTS 

4. 

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS 

2007 

273 

2008 

156 

2009 

134  

5. 

REPLIES  

2007 

2008 

No 

181 

50 

42 

% 

66.30

18.32

15.38

No 

75 

52 

29 

% 

48.08

33.33

18.59

2009 

No 

% 

27 

33 

60 

22.50

27.50

50

273 

100.00

156 

100.00

120 (1) 

100.00

Confirmation 

Partial revision 

Full revision 

Total 

(1) 

This figure includes 14 applications which were still being processed at 30 April 2010, mainly because 
of the volume of documents involved. 

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 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 

2007 

1.19 

2008 

0.18 

2.23 

0.82 

10.98 

10.24 

1.26 

2.9 

5.04 

10.79 

6.08 

5.98 

14.4 

6.52 

2009 

1.36 

0.54 

8.17 

2.09 

6.99 

13.99 

9.81 

23.48 

26.63 

27.61 

EN 

10 

   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/author 

12.02 

13.5 

17.80 

19.29 

15.22 

7.81 

7.64 

3.62 

3.81 

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 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 

2007 

2008 

2009 

0.9 

0.4 

2.2 

0.4 

4.8 

0.42 

0.42 

5.91 

0.84 

5.06 

2.55 

0 

4.38 

3.28 

14.23 

25.25 

24.89 

17.52 

4.8 

3.8 

5.47 

24.75 

27.85 

25.91 

5.7 

17.3 

12.77 

11.7 
19.1 

12.24 
1.27 

13.87 
0 

Total

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
BREAKDOWN OF REQUESTS 

8. 

ACCORDING TO SOCIAL AND OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE OF REQUESTERS (%) 

Academics 

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

Members of the public whose 
socioprofessional profile was not 
indicated 
Public authorities (other than the EU 
institutions) 

2007 

31.85 

2008 

31.03 

2009 

21.29 

17.77 

18.26 

9.85 

15.33 

16.75 

45.5 

15.69 

14.19 

7.33 

Lawyers 

9.69 

11.01 

10.24 

Other EU institutions 

6.75 

6.3 

3.77 

Journalists 

2.90 

2.46 

2.02 

9. 

ACCORDING TO GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN (%) 

Belgium 

Germany 

Italy 

France 

United Kingdom 

Spain 

Netherlands 

Other 

Luxembourg 

Not specified 

Poland 

2007 

19.86 

15.58 

8.18 

9.32 

5.76 

5.92 

4.42 

1.76 

2.8 

1.16 

2.41 

2008 

18.93 

16.89 

8.54 

8 

6.34 

5.29 

4.83 

2.63 

2.61 

2.61 

2.57 

2009 

18.26 

16.61 

7.18 

8.01 

6.23 

6.27 

5.45 

- 

1.71 

10.57 

2.86 

EN 

12 

   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 

Croatia 

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 

0.43 

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 

0.08 

1.63 

1.98 

1.06 

1.61 

2.13 

0.72 

1.11 

- 

0.78 

0.09 

0.70 

0.35 

0.93 

0.07 

0.56 

0.39 

0.06 

- 

0.50 

- 

0.20 

0.30 

- 

0.17 

- 

- 

- 

EN 

13 

   EN 

Ukraine 

New Zealand 

Australia 

Brazil 

Turkey 

Canada 

Israel 

South Africa 

FYROM 

Albania 

Iceland 

Egypt 

Non-EU European countries 

Asia 

South America 

North America 

Africa 

0.04 

0.07 

0.04 

0.12 

0.25 

0.12 

0.04 

0.02 

0.02 

0.14 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0.08 

0.08 

0.06 

0.06 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04  

0.02 

0.02 

0 

0 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0.07 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

-- 

- 

- 

- 

0.76 

0.19 

0.09 

0.28 

0.20 

EU countries  

Candidate countries  

Other 

Not specified 

2007 

92,28 

0,12 

4,55 

3,05 

2008 

99,46 

0 

0 

0,54 

2009 

87,79 

0 

1,63 

10,57 

10. 

ACCORDING TO AREA OF INTEREST (%) 

Directorate-General / Service 

SG – Secretariat General 

2007 

10.19 

2008 

9.38 

2009 

10.10 

EN 

14 

   EN 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
+ OIB, Office for Infrastructure and Logistics - 
Brussels, + OIL, Office for Infrastructure and 
Logistics – Luxembourg 
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 
MARE - Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
BUDG – Budget 
COMM – Communication 
OLAF – European Anti-Fraud Office 
CAB – Commissioners' Cabinets 
DGT – Directorate-General for Translation 
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 

7.54 
6.46 
7.32 
8.45 
6.11 
5.48 
4.27 

4.82 
2.34 
+0.22 

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 
0.08 
0.24 
0.13 

0.21 
0.02 
0.1 
0.06 

0.03 

8.18 
7.28 
7.18 
6.69 
6.07 
5.91 
5.74 

5.17 
4.08 
+0.28 

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 
0.23 
0.22 
0.18 

0.15 
0.13 
0.07 
0.07 

0.05 

8.02 
7.27 
7.03 
7.74 
8.37 
4.55 
4.69 

6.20 
3.15 

3.28 
4.07 
3.67 
2.08 
2.25 
2.29 
1.80 
1.33 
1.42 
1.74 
1.44 
1.52 
1.87 
0.79 
1.07 
0.41 
0.24 
0.30 
0.13 
0.26 
0.11 
- 

0.24 
0.22 
0.02 
0.06 

0.19 

EN 

15 

   EN 

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

0.02 

0.03 
0.02 
100 

0.02 

0 
- 
100 

0.02 

0.07 
- 
100 

EN 

16 

   EN