REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the application in 2010 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents
Date: 2011-08-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament, access to EU information, provision of documents

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 12.8.2011 
COM(2011) 492 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the application in 2010 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to 
European Parliament, Council and Commission documents 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the application in 2010 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to 
European Parliament, Council and Commission documents 

FOREWORD 

This report, drawn up pursuant to Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding 
public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents1, covers the year 
2010 and is based on statistical data which are summarised in the annex.  

These statistics reflect the number of applications and not of requested documents. In practice, 
applications  may  cover  a  single  document  or  entire  files  concerning  a  specific  procedure. 
Applications  for  access  to  documents  which  were  publicly  accessible  at  the  time  of  the 
request, are not included. 

1. 

REVISION OF REGULATION (EC) NO 1049/2001 

1.1. 

1.2. 

The  proposal  for  a  recast  of  the  Regulation,  submitted  by  the  Commission  on  30 
April 2008, is still at first reading. The Parliament voted a report with amendments 
on 11 March 2009 but postponed the vote on the legislative resolution. After the June 
2009 elections, the new Parliament has resumed work on the Commission proposal. 
The committees for Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) and for Petitions (PETI) adopted 
their opinions on 30 November 2010 and 1 December 2010 respectively. The Civil 
Liberties committee (LIBE) has not yet voted on a new draft report. In the Council, 
the proposal has been examined at the working group level. 

Following  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Treaty  of  Lisbon  on  1  December  2009,  the 
Commission  has  submitted  on  21  March  2011  a  new  proposal  with  a  view  to 
adapting  Regulation  1049/2001  to  the  requirements  of  the  Treaty  of  Lisbon.  This 
proposal  aims  at  extending  the  institutional  scope  of  the  Regulation  to  all  the 
European Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, with some restrictions as 
regards the European Court of Justice, the European Central Bank and the European 
Investment Bank, in accordance with Article 15(3) of the consolidated version of the 
Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. 

2. 

REGISTERS AND INTERNET SITES 

2.1. 

2.2. 

In 2010, 18661 new documents were added to the register of Commission documents 
(see table in annex). 

According to Article 17 (1) of Regulation 1049/2001 the Commission has to provide 
in its annual reports the number of documents in its possession which are “sensitive” 

1 

OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
in  the  meaning  of  Article  9(1)  of  the  Regulation2  and  have  therefore  not  been 
recorded in the register. The Commission's public  register  covers documents of  the 
COM,  C,  OJ,  PV  and  SEC  series.  In  2010  no  sensitive  documents  were  created  or 
received  by  the  Commission,  that  would  fall  within  one  of  these  categories  of 
documents.  

2.3. 

The  table  below  shows  the  statistics  for  2010  on  consultation  of  the  Openness  and 
Access to Documents website on EUROPA. 

Number of visitors  Number of sessions 

Pages viewed 

48.557 

4046 

61.308 

5109 

452.695 

37725 

Total 

Monthly 
average 

3. 

COOPERATION WITH THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATION 

The inter-institutional committee set up pursuant to Art. 15(2) of the Regulation was 
not convened during 2010. The three institutions (European Parliament, Council and 
Commission) maintained regular contacts at the administrative level with a view to 
ensure a consistent application of the Regulation. 

4. 

ANALYSIS OF ACCESS APPLICATIONS 

4.1. 

4.2. 

2010  has  seen  a  significant  increase  of  the  number  of  initial  applications  made 
under  Regulation  1049/2001  (6127  applications  compared  with  5055  in  2009,  i.e 
21% more). 

The  number  of  substantive  decisions  on  confirmatory  applications  issued  during 
2010 remained stable: 122 decisions of substance in 2010 against 120 in 2009. The 
total  number  of  responses  to  confirmatory  applications  was  152.  The  additional  30 
cases have been closed without a formal decision under Regulation 1049/2001. They 
concern  either  applications  which  were  devoid  of  purpose,  or  requests  which  were 
handled under another, more appropriate legal basis, e.g. under Regulation 45/2001 
on  personal  data  protection  as  regards  requests  for  access  to  the  applicant's  own 
personal data. The number of confirmatory applications received increased from 140 
in  2009  to  181  in  2010.  The  difference  between  the  number  of  confirmatory 
applications received and the number of decisions issued is reflected in the number 
of cases pending at the end of the year (68).  

4.3. 

Competition policy comes first on the list of domains of interest with 9.07% of initial 
applications,  followed  closely  by  other  major  EU  policy  areas,  such  as  home  and 

2 

"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 

 
 
                                                 
4.4. 

4.5. 

justice affairs, transport and energy, the internal market, taxation and customs union, 
health and consumer protection, environment and enterprise policy. 

The main categories of applicants remain the academic world, accounting for 23.24% 
of  initial  applications,  law  firms  with  10.69  %  and  civil  society  (NGO's,  interest 
groups)  with  8.18%  of  the  total  number  of  applications.  For  32.68  %  of  the 
applications, the socio-professional profile is undefined. 

The  geographical  breakdown  of  initial  applications  also  remained  very  similar  to 
previous  years.  However,  whereas  for  obvious  reasons  the  largest  proportion  of 
applications, namely 17.95%, came from persons or bodies established in Belgium, 
an almost equal proportion of applications (16.62%) originated from Germany. None 
of  the  other  Member  States,  exceeded  10%  of  applications,  the  largest  numbers 
coming  from  the  highly-populated  Member  States,  i.e.  France,  Italy,  Spain,  the 
United  Kingdom  and  the  Netherlands,  which  together  accounted  for  36.45%  of  the 
applications.  The  share  of  applications  from  the  new  Member  States  slightly 
increased with 4.23% of applications originating from the Czech Republic and 2.76% 
from Poland. 

5. 

APPLICATION OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT OF ACCESS 

5.1. 

The  percentage  of  initial  applications  which  were  fully  granted  remained  in  2010 
above  80%  (82,16%),  while  partial  access  was  granted  in  5,37%  of  initial 
applications.  In  82.16%  of  cases  (compared  with  84.23%  in  2009)  the  documents 
were  disclosed  in  full,  while  in  5.37%  of  cases  (compared  with  4.11%  in  2009) 
partial access was granted. This means that as in 2009, the percentage of applications 
that were refused in the first instance in full (for various reasons) stabilised around 
12%. 

5.2. 

After a decrease in 2009, the percentage of decisions confirming the initial position 
show a return to a level comparable to the one of 2008 (50% in 2010, against 48.08% 
in 2008 and only 22.50% in 2009). 

Also  the  percentage  of  cases  in  which  access  was  granted  in  full  after  an  initial 
refusal returned to a level similar to 2008 (15.57% in 2010 against 50% in 2009 and 
18.59% in 2008). On the other hand, the percentage of cases in which partial access 
was granted after an initial refusal, increased noticeably (34.43% in 2010, as against 
27.50% in 2009). 

5.3. 

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

– 

– 

the  protection  of  the  purpose  of  inspections,  investigations  and  audits  (third 
indent  of  Article  4(2)),  with  a  slight  decrease  compared  to  2009  (26.63%  of 
refusals instead of 27.61% in 2009); 

the  protection  of  the  Commission's  decision-making  process  (Article  4(3)), 
with a percentage of 16.80% for cases where the decision had still to be taken 
and 9.66 % for those concerning opinions for internal use, totalling 26.42% of 
refusals (compared with a total of 25.61% in 2009). 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
The  percentage  of  refusals  based  on  the  protection  of  commercial  interests  slightly 
decreased  in  comparison  with  the  previous  year  amounting  to  11.84%  (instead  of 
13.99% in 2009). 

5.4. 

The main grounds for confirming a refusal of access were: 

– 

– 

– 

the protection of the purpose of investigations (32% compared with 25.91% in 
2009); 

the  protection  of  commercial  interests  (16.67%  compared  with  17.52%  in 
2009); 

the protection of the Commission's decision-making process, with a percentage 
of 11.33% for cases where the decision had still to be taken and 8% for those 
concerning  opinions  for  internal  use,  totalling  19.33%  of  refusals  (compared 
with a total of 26.64% in 2009). 

6. 

COMPLAINTS TO THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN 

6.1. 

In  2010  the  Ombudsman  closed  the  following  23  complaints  against  the 
Commission's handling of requests for access to documents: 

1 case closed without finding any form of maladministration 

2953/2008/FOR  

13 cases closed with a critical and/or a further remark 

3699/2006/ELB 

355/2007/TN(FOR) 

671/2007/PB 

2502/2007/RT 

3163/2007/BEH 

676/2008/RT3 

1039/2008/FOR 

1438/2008/DK 

1202/2009/GG 

1207/2009/GG 

1302/2009/TS 

100/2010/GG 

465/2010/FOR 

9 cases closed without further action 

301/2008/IP 

2219/2008/(JMA)MHZ 2643/2008(TN)RT  3052/2008(BB)FOR 

966/2009/JMA 

2647/2009/IP 

172/2010/ANA 

1195/2010/OV 

1357/2010/MHZ 

6.2. 

In the course of the year the Ombudsman opened 22 new inquiries where access to 
documents was either the main or a subsidiary part of the complaint. 

7. 

JUDICIAL REVIEW 

3 

This case has been also subject to a special report from the European Ombudsman. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2010 was a very intensive year as regards new case law4. 

7.1. 

The Court of Justice delivered four judgments on appeals in 2010:  

C-362/08 P Internationaler Hilfsfonds v 
Commission, judgment of 26/1/2010 

C-28/08 P Commission v Bavarian Lager, 
judgment of 29/6/2010 

C-139/07 P Commission v Technische 
Glaswerke Ilmenau, judgment of 
29/6/2010 (TGI) 

Joined cases C-514/07P, C-528/07 P,  
C- 532/07 P, API, Sweden and 
Commission, judgment of 21/9/2010 

These  four 
interpretation of both substantive and procedural aspects of Regulation 1049/2001.  

important  clarifications 

judgments  provided 

in  relation 

to 

the 

Concerning the substantive aspects, in the two judgments handed down on 29 June 
2010  (Bavarian  Lager  and  TGI),  the  Court  of  Justice  clarified  the  interpretation  of 
the exceptions provided for under Article 4(1)(b) and under Article 4(2) 3rd indent of 
Regulation  1049/2001.  In  API  judgment  the  Court  of  Justice  interpreted  the 
exception of Article 4(2) 2nd indent.  

In Bavarian Lager, the Court of Justice ruled that, where a public access request is 
made  to  documents  containing  personal  data,  the  provisions  of  the  Data  Protection 
Regulation become applicable in their entirety, including the provision requiring the 
recipient of personal data to establish the need for their disclosure and the provision 
which  confers  on  the  data  subject  the  right  to  object  at  any  time,  on  compelling 
legitimate grounds relating to his or her particular situation, to the processing of data 
relating to him or her.  

In  the  TGI  judgment  the  Court  of  Justice  held  that  documents  pertaining  to  the 
Commission's administrative files relating to State aid investigations are covered by 
a  general  presumption  that  their  disclosure  would  in  principle  undermine  the 
protection  of  the  purpose  of  investigations.  The  State  aid  Regulation  does  not  lay 
down any right of access to the file for interested parties. If they were able to obtain 
access, on the basis of Regulation 1049/2001, the system for State aid review would 
be called into question. The Court further ruled that this presumption can be rebutted 
if  the  applicant  demonstrates  that  a  requested  document  is  not  "covered  by  that 
presumption" or that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. 

In API, the Court of Justice formulated a presumption of inaccessibility of pleadings 
submitted  by  an  institution  to  the  EU  courts  before  the  closure  of  the  judicial 
proceedings.  Similarly  to  the  logic  used  in  TGI  decision,  this  interpretation  of  the 
exception  relating  to  court  proceedings  was  deduced  from  the  legal  framework 
governing court proceedings and from the absence of access rights for the public as 
regards judicial activities.  

Finally,  as  concerns  Internationaler  Hilfsfonds,  the  Court  clarified  that  a  new 
application for access to a document which was previously refused can be introduced 

4 

For details of each case referred to below, see http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
at  any  time  and  that  the  institution  concerned  is  obliged  in  such  case  to  analyse 
whether  the  refusal  remains  justified  in  the  light  of  a  change  of  legal  or  factual 
circumstances which could have occurred in the meantime.  

7.2. 

As  for  the  General  Court,  it  has  handed  down  five  judgments  concerning 
Commission's decisions:  

Joined cases T-355/04 et 
T-446/04, Co-Frutta 
Soc.coop. v Commission, 
judgment of 19.1.2010 

T-474/08, D. Umbach v 
Commission, judgment 
of 21.10.2010 

T-237/05, Editions Odile 
Jacob SAS v Commission, 
judgment of 9.6.2010 

T-111/07, Agrofert v 
Commission, judgment 
of 7.7.2010 

Joined cases T-494/08 to T-
500/08 and T-509/08, 
Ryanair v Commission, 
judgment of 10.12.2010 

In two cases concerning access to the Commission's investigation files in the field of 
merger  control,  Editions  Odile  Jacob  and  Agrofert,  the  Commission's  decisions 
under Regulation 1049/2001 have been annulled by the General Court essentially on 
grounds of lack of individual and concrete examination of the documents5.  

In the Ryanair cases, the General Court followed the judgment of the Court of Justice 
in TGI and dismissed the applications.  

In the remaining two cases the Commission's decisions under Regulation 1049/2001 
have been upheld by the General Court. 

Likewise,  in  the  judgment  of  21.10.2010,  the  application  was  dismissed  in  case  T-
439/08, Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA, where the Commission was 
one  of  the  defending  parties,  although  the  author  of  the  challenged  decision  was 
EACEA. 

Finally, three further cases have to be mentioned which have been removed from the 
register following the withdrawal by the applicant: 

T-245/09, Shell Hellas v 
Commission, order of 
5.1.2010  

T-251/09, Soc. des Pétroles 
Shell v Comission, order of 
5.1.2010

T-170/03, BAT v 
Commission, order of 
6.9.2010 

7.3. 

14 new cases were brought in 2010 against Commission decisions under Regulation 
(EC) No 1049/2001.  

T-17/10, Gerald 
Steinberg v Commission 

T-36/10, Internationaler 
Hilfsfonds e.V. v 
Commission 

T-120/10, ClientEarth 
and Others v 
Commission 

5 

See also Section 7.4 of the present Report 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
T-167/10, Evropaïki 
Dynamiki v Commission 

T-180/10, Nickel Institute v 
Commission 

T-181/10, Reagens SpA v 
Commission 

T-267/10, Land Wien v 
Commission 

T-291/10, Anne Martin v 
Commission 

T-301/10, Sophie in 't 
Veld v Commission 

T-359/10, Ecologistas en 
Acción-CODA v 
Commission 

T-449/10, ClientEarth 
and Others v Commission 

T-511/10, Evropaïki 
Dynamiki v Commission 

T-300/10, International 
Hilfsfonds e.V. v 
Commission 

T-395/10, Stichting 
Corporate Europe 
Observatory v 
Commission 

7.4. 

Also, three new appeals have been brought to the Court of Justice against judgments 
of the General Court. 

Appeals lodged by the Commission (see section 7.2. above): 

C-404/10P, Commission v Editions 
Odile Jacob SAS, Lagardère SCA 

C-477/10P, Commission v Agrofert 
Holding a.s., other parties Sweden, 
Finland, Denmark, Polski Koncern 
Naftowy Orlen SA 

Appeal lodged by the applicant at first instance: 

C-609/10P, Dieter C. Umbach v Commission 

8. 

CONCLUSIONS 

8.1. 

In  2010,  there  was  again  a  significant  increase  in  the  volume  of  access  requests. 
While  in  2009  the  number  remained  at  the  same  level  as  in  the  previous  year,  at 
around  5,000,  more  than  6,000  requests  were  made  in  2010.  Despite  this  20% 
increase,  the  ratio  of  disclosure  remains  high:  four  out  of  five  requests  receive  a 
positive reply. It is noteworthy that, in ten years time, the number of access requests 
has  risen  from  500  to  6,000  per  year.  Given  the  overall  volume  of  requests,  the 
number of confirmatory applications, complaints to the Ombudsman and applications 
to the Court remains very modest.  

Even if the share of citizens has increased, most applications for access are still made 
by  the  academic  sector,  by  NGO's,  interest  groups  and  law  firms.  Many  of  these 
requests cover infringement proceedings, antritrust, merger, State aid or antidumping 
cases. As in the previous years, requests for access concern mainly the Commission's 
role  in  enforcing  EU  law,  where  transparency  must  be  balanced  against  other 
legitimate interests, in accordance with the applicable rules. As regards Commission 
initiatives for new legislation, there is already a high degree of transparency, as many 
documents are made public pro-actively. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
8.2. 

Ten  years  after  the  Regulation  was  adopted,  its  implementation  has  led  to  a 
consolidated  administrative  practice  with  regard  to  the  citizen's  right  of  access  to 
Commission documents. Through the case law, the Court of Justice and the General 
Court  have  significantly  contributed 
the 
Commission remains convinced that the revision of the Regulation should build on 
what has been achieved in the past ten years.  

this  consolidation.  Therefore, 

to 

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 

2010 

2088 

12630 

127 

92 

3724 

18661 

INITIAL REQUESTS 

2. 

APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AND HANDLED 

Applications received 

Replies given7 8  

Replies  given  based  on 
Regulation 1049/2001 

20086 

2009 

2010 

- 

- 

5197

5401 

6636 

5055 

6361

7148

6127

3. 

RESULT  

2008 

2009 

2010 

No 

% 

No 

% 

No 

% 

4314 

82.68 

4258 

84.23 

5034 

82.16 

703 

13.99 

589 

11.65 

764 

12.47 

180 

3.33 

208 

4.11 

329 

5.37 

total 

5197 

100 

5055 

100 

6127 

100 

Access granted 

Access refused 

Partial access 

6 

7 

8 

Please note, that for 2008 the Commission cannot provide the comparable statistical data corresponding 
to  the  categories  of  "Applications  received"  and  "Replies  given"  for  either  initial  nor  confirmatory 
requests; 
Please  note  that  a  single  request  can  concern  several  documents  and  can  consequently  give  rise  to 
several different replies; 
Please note that the category "Replies given" includes the replies given outside the scope of Regulation 
1049/2001, for example replies given under Regulation 45/2001; 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
CONFIRMATORY REQUESTS 

4. 

APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AND HANDLED 

Applications received 

Replies to applications  

Decisions on confirmatory 
applications based on Regulation 
1049/2001 

5. 

RESULT  

2008 

2009 

2010 

 - 

- 

156 

140 

134 

120 

181 

152 

122 

2008 

2009 

2010 

No 

% 

No 

% 

No 

% 

Confirmation 

Partial revision 

Full revision 

75 

52 

29 

48.08 

33.33 

18.59 

27 

33 

60 

total 

156 

100 

120  

22.50 

27.50 

50 

100 

61 

42 

19 

50 

34.43 

15.57 

122 

100 

(1) 

BREAKDOWN OF REFUSALS BY EXCEPTION APPLIED (%) 

6. 

INITIAL REQUESTS 

4.1.a. 1st indent – Protection of public security 
4.1.a. 2nd indent Protection of defence and military 
matters 
4.1.a. 3rd indent - Protection of international 
relations 
4.1.a. 4th indent – Protection of the 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 the purpose of 
inspections, investigations and audits 
4.3 subparagraph 1– Decision-making process, no 
decision yet taken 
4.3. subparagraph 2- Decision making process, 
decision already taken: opinions for internal use as 
part of deliberations and preliminary consultations 
4.5. Refusal by Member State/third author 

2008 

2009 

2010 

0.18 

0.82 

1.36 

0.54 

1.94 

0.14 

10.24 

8.17 

9.83 

2.9 

2.09 

2.15 

5.98 

14.4 

6.52 

6.99 

9.76 

13.99 

11.84 

9.81 

7.32 

26.63 

27.61 

26.63 

13.5 

17.80 

16.80 

15.22 

7.81 

9.62 

3.62 

total

100 

3.81 

100 

3.94 

100 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7. 

CONFIRMATORY REQUESTS 

4.1.a. 1st indent – Protection of public security 
4.1.a. 2nd indent - Protection of defence and 
military matters 
4.1.a. 3rd indent - Protection of international 
relations 
4.1.a. 4th indent – Protection of the 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 the purpose of 
inspections, investigations and audits 
4.3 subparagraph 1 – Decision-making process, no 
decision yet taken 
4.3. subparagraph 2 - Decision making process, 
decision already taken: opinions for internal use as 
part of deliberations and preliminary consultations 
4.5. Refusal by Member State 

2008 

2009 

2010 

0.42 

0.42 

2.55 

2,67 

0 

0 

5.91 

4.38 

6,67 

0.84 

3.28 

3,33 

5.06 

14.23 

9,33 

24.89 

17.52 

16.67 

3.8 

5.47 

27.85 

25.91 

10 

32 

17.3 

12.77 

11,33 

12.24 

13.87 

1.27 

- 

8 

- 

total

100 

100 

100 

BREAKDOWN OF REQUESTS 

8. 

ACCORDING TO SOCIAL AND OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE OF APPLICANTS (%) 

Academics 

Public  authorities  (other  than  the  EU 
institutions) 
Lawyers 
Other EU institutions 

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

Not specified 

2008 

31.03 

14.19 

11.01 

6.3 

18.26 

2.46 

16.75 

total

100 

2009 

21.29 

7.33 

10.24 

3.77 

9.85 

2.02 

45.5 

100 

2010 

23.24 

13.56 

10.69 

8.32 

8.18 

3.35 

32.68 

100 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
9. 

ACCORDING TO GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN (%) 

Belgium 
Germany 
France 
Italy 
United Kingdom 
Spain 
Netherlands 
Czech Republic 
Poland 
Sweden 
Austria 
Luxembourg 
Denmark 
Ireland 
Greece 
Portugal 
Romania 
Finland 
Hungary 
Bulgaria 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Estonia 
Non-EU European countries 
North America 
Australia and New Zealand 
Africa 
South America 
Asia 
Not specified 

2008 

18.93 
16.89 
8 
8.54 
6.34 
5.29 
4.83 
1.26 
2.57 
1.44 
2.11 
2.61 
2.45 
1.28 
1.93 
1.5 
0.58 
1.08 
0.86 
0.36 
0.24 
0.32 
0.62 
0.2 
0.22 
0.28 
0.1 
2.12 
1.16 
0.14 
0.04 
0.06 
0.46 

5.24 

total

100 

2009 

18.26 
16.61 
8.01 
7.18 
6.23 
6.27 
5.45 
1.11 
2.86 
2.13 
1.98 
1.71 
1.63 
0.72 
1.06 
1.61 
0.93 
0.78 
0.70 
0.56 
0.50 
0.39 
0.35 
0.30 
0.20 
0.06 
0.17 
0.83 
0.37 
0.07 
0.20 
0.09 
0.19 

10.57 

100 

2010 

17.95 
16.62 
9.05 
8.85 
7.24 
6.86 
4.43 
4.23 
2.76 
2.18 
2.08 
1.99 
2.02 
1.49 
1.22 
1.16 
1.11 
0.81 
0.89 
0.69 
0.56 
0.52 
0.31 
0.22 
0.20 
0.13 
0.09 
0.50 
0.11 
0.09 
0.05 
0.05 
0.04 

3.49 

100 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
  
10. 

ACCORDING TO AREA OF INTEREST (%) 

Directorate-General / Service 

2008 

2009 

2010 

SG – Secretariat General 
COMP – Competition 
JUST - Justice + HOME - Home Affairs (former JLS) 
MOVE – Mobility and Transport + ENER – Energy (former TREN) 
MARKT – Internal market 
ENV – Environment + CLIMA – Climate Action 
SANCO – Health and Consumer Protection 
TAXUD – Taxation and Customs Union 
ENTR – Enterprise 
RELEX – External Relations 
AGRI – Agriculture 
REGIO – Regional Policy 
TRADE – Trade 
DEVCO – Development and Cooperation-EuropeAid (former DEV + 
AIDCO)  
EMPL – Employment and Social Affairs 
SJ – Legal Service 
ECFIN – Economic and Financial Affairs 
HR - Human Resources and Security (former ADMIN) + OIB + OIL - 
Offices for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels and Luxembourg 
+  PMO  –  Office  for  Administration  and  Payment  of  Individual 
Entitlements 
RTD – Research, JRC – Joint Research Centre 
INFSO – Information Society 
ELARG – Enlargement 
BUDG – Budget 
EAC – Education and Culture 
COMM – Communication 
MARE - Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
DGT – Translation 
ESTAT – Eurostat 
CAB – Commissioners' Cabinets 
ECHO – Humanitarian Office 
OLAF – European Anti-Fraud Office 
OPOCE – Publications Office 
EPSO – Recruitment Office 
IAS – Internal Audit Service 
DIGIT – Informatics 
SCIC – Interpretation 
BEPA – Bureau of European Policy Advisers 

9.38 
7.18 
6.69 
8.18 
7.28 
6.07 
5.74 
5.17 
5.91 
2.39 
3.6 
3.42 
2.72 

3.22 

3.72 
1.75 
1.23 

4.54 

1.36 
2.3 
1.5 
1.07 
1.4 
0.85 
1.13 
0.32 
0.22 
0.43 
0.15 
0.62 
0.05 
0.23 
0.07 
0 
0.02 
0.07 

total

100 

10.10 
7.03 
7.74 
8.02 
7.27 
8.37 
4.69 
6.20 
4.55 
2.25 
4.07 
3.67 
2.08 

2.75 

3.28 
1.80 
1.87 

11.64 
9.07 
8.38 
7.14 
6.14 
6.07 
5.44 
5.30 
4.48 
3.29 
3.15 
3.06 
3.06 

2.77 

2.74 
2.68 
2.32 

3.15 

2.29 

1.74 
2.29 
1.74 
1.07 
1.44 
0.41 
0.79 
0.13 
0.11 
0.30 
0.24 
0.24 
0.19 
0.26 
0.02 
0.07 
0.02 
0.06 

100 

1.82 
1.79 
1.47 
1.24 
1.13 
0.74 
0.66 
0.36 
0.31 
0.28 
0.28 
0.27 
0.19 
0.14 
0.09 
0.09 
0.08 
0.03 

100 

EN 

13 

   EN