Source: https://www.asktheeu.org/es/request/access_to_information_regarding_10?utm_campaign=alaveteli-experiments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm_medium=link&utm_source=asktheeu.org
Timestamp: 2020-07-13 08:05:09
Document Index: 219728848

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 4', 'CJEU ', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 4', 'CJEU ', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 6']

Access to information regarding total allowable catches (TACs) of EU fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic discussed and adopted on 16 and 17 December 2019, and exemptions from the landing obligation - una solicitud de información a Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca - AsktheEU.org
Printed from https://www.asktheeu.org/es/request/access_to_information_regarding_10?utm_campaign=alaveteli-experiments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm_medium=link&utm_source=asktheeu.org on July 13, 2020 10:05
Anne Friel made this acceso a documentos request to Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca
La respuesta a esta solicitud está muy retrasada. Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca ya debería haber respondido (detalles). Puedes apelar pidiendo una revisión interna.
Anne Friel 23 de enero de 2020
In accordance with Article 2 of Regulation 1049/2001 and Article 3 of Regulation 1367/2001, ClientEarth would like to have access to the following information related to the total allowable catches (TACs) for fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic for 2020:
1.	Any records, minutes or notes of meetings/discussions that took place between the Commission and the Member State representatives on the TACs for 2020, including any minutes or notes of Council working party/ministerial meetings taken by Commission staff, and any internal Commission briefings on the subject. We do not seek access to the Commission's legislative proposals for the 2020 TACs, unless such documents are annotated and/or contain negotiation directives. We also do not seek access to the documents that are publicly available in the Council’s document register, filed under interinstitutional code 2019/0235 (NLE) at the date of this request.
3.	A detailed description of the methodology used to calculate quota adjustments (top-ups or deductions) insofar it differs from the approach taken last year, as explained in documents available at https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/6376... letter Helene Clark to chairs Redacted.pdf.pdf and https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/6376... 2019 and Top downs Presentation to AT Pres and MS Redacted.pdf.pdf
4.	The calculations that the proposed and agreed quota adjustments (top-ups or deductions) were based on, ideally in Excel spreadsheet format. Please note that we have already received access to the following documents from the Council and do not require to receive these again from the Commission:
•	WK 11790/2019 ADD 1 of 25/10/2019: Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing for 2020 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters - Calculation Tables for 2020 Discard Plan Exemptions and Deductions.
•	WK 11790/2019 INIT of 25/10/2019: Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing for 2020 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters - Calculation Tables for 2020 Discard Plan Exemptions and Deductions.
These documents seem to contain the Commission’s quota adjustment calculations (and the proposed adjustments) and tables from the STECF regarding the discard data per exemption which these calculations are based on. We particularly seek access to the Commission’s calculations in Excel format and any updates that might have been drawn up by the Commission after 25 October 2019, as well as the calculations regarding the final adjustments agreed by the Council insofar these differ from the calculations and results presented in the above-mentioned documents.
5. We would also like to have access to any documents relating to exemptions from the landing obligation for 2020 in the North Sea, North Western Waters and South Western Waters in the period between the STECF’s Expert Working Group 19-08 of June 2019 and the Commission’s adoption of the discard plans in October 2020, including any correspondence between the Commission and the Member States and any records, minutes or notes of meetings/discussions that took place between the Commission and the Member States regarding this matter.
CARDOSO PINTO Filipa, Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca 24 de enero de 2020
[4]Ares(2020)462102 - GESTDEM 2020/0450 - ACKR
Sent by CARDOSO PINTO Filipa (MARE) <[email address]>.
Envoyé par CARDOSO PINTO Filipa (MARE)
Thank you for your email dated 23/01/2020. We hereby acknowledge receipt
24/02/2020 under reference number GestDem 2020/0450.
MARE ACCESS DOCUMENTS team
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01D5D2C3.0B4F4DE0
ve_mare.acces.documents (MARE), Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca 7 de febrero de 2020
[4]Ares(2020)789213 - Your application for access to documents – Ref
GestDem No 2020/0450
We refer to your request dated 23/01/2020 in which you make a request for
access to documents, registered on 24/01/2020 under the above mentioned
limit of 15 working days, which expires on 14/02/2020.
An extended time limit is needed as your application. In order to retrieve
public access to documents. The new time limit expires on 06/03/2020.
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01D5DDA0.0CB6CC70
ve_mare.acces.documents (MARE), Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca 6 de marzo de 2020
Reply NEGATIVE Gest Dem 2020 0450 v4 docx.pdf
Reply 1.7z
28.5M Download
[4]Ares(2020)1410140 - your GestDem request 2020/0450
Please find attached reply to your request GestDem 202/0450. Please note
that the cover letter will be send to you via registered mail, the annexes
will be send electronically only.
Please note that as the number of annex documents is high, we need to send
more than one email with annex documents attached.
MARE ACCESS DOCUMENTS
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01D5F3C3.73A9AE50
Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca 6 de marzo de 2020
Reply 2.7z
Anne Friel 9 de marzo de 2020
Thank you for your response and the files you have sent. Unfortunately, we have not managed top open some of the files in the second zipped file you sent. Specifically, we cannot open the following files:
Ares(2019)4908673 Annex v2 Hiden informaton removed
Ares(2019)4908673 Updating Discard Plan after Scientific Assessment
Ares(2019)5095653 2nd Revised JR for amendment of North Sea discard plan
Ares(2019)5095653 Email from Schevening Group re 2nd Revised JR
Ares(2019)5095653 Letter to Mr Friess on 2nd Revised JR for amendment of the NS demersal discard plan redact
Ares(2019)5131646 3rd Revised JR for amendment of NS discard plan 07.082019_redacted
Ares(2019)5131646 Email re 3rd revised JR-redacted
Ares(2019)5159823 2019-08-08_JR NWW 2020-21_rev2
Ares(2019)5159823 Email_Redacted
Ares(2019)5159823 Letter to Commission on JR NWW_8th of Aug 2019
Ares(2019)5242485 Email to JR NWW 29072019_redacted
Ares(2019)5242485 Letter to Commission on JR NWW_29th of July 2019
Ares(2019)5266596 Email transmitting the JR of SWW_redacted
Ares(2019)5266596 Joint Recommendation of South Western Waters _2020-2021 Rev 09-08
Ares(2019)5369980 2019-08-22_JR NWW 2020-21_rev3v2_Redacted
Ares(2019)5369980 Emailing transmistting 3rd revised JR NWW_Redacted
GestDem 2020-0450 list of documents Categories 1&5
We would be grateful if you could send these documents again at your earliest convenience.
Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca 9 de marzo de 2020
Ares 2019 4908673 Annex v2 hidden information removed.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 4908673 Updating Discard Plan after Scientific Assessment v2 Redacted.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 5095653 2nd Revised JR for amendment of North Sea discard plan 01.08.2019 Redacted v2.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 5095653 Email from Schevening Group re 2nd revised JR Redacted.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 5095653Letter to Mr.Friess on 2nd revised JR for amendment of the NS demersal discardplan redact.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 5131646 3rd Revised JR for amendment of NS discard plan 07.08.2019 Redacted v2.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 5131646 Email re 3rd revised JR Redacted.pdf.pdf
Here are the first seven documents.
Ares 2019 5159823 Email Redacted.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 5159823 Letter to Commission on JR NWW 8th of Aug 2019v2.docx Redacted.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 5242485 Email re JR NWW 29072019 Redacted.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 5242485 Letter to Commission on JR NWW 29th of July 2019 30 Jul 19 3 002.docxv2 Redacted.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 5159823 2019 08 08 JR NWW 2020 21 rev2.v2docx.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 5266596 Email transmitting the JR of SWW Redacted.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 5266596 Joint Recommendation of the South Western Waters 2020 2021 Rev 09 08v2.docx Redacted.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 5369980 2019 08 22 JR NWW 2020 21 rev3v2.docx Redacted.pdf.pdf
Ares 2019 5369980 Email transmitting 3rd revised JR NWW Redacted.pdf.pdf
Thank you for your prompt reaction. Would it also be possible to send the final document, Gest Dem 2020-0450 list of documents Categories 1 & 5?
Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca 23 de marzo de 2020
Gest Dem 2020 0450 list of documents Category 5.xlsx
Apologies for coming back to you only now.
Is this the document you are referring to ?
Anne Friel 27 de marzo de 2020
RE: Confirmatory application in relation to the Commission's decision not to disclose information on total allowable catches (TACs) of EU fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic discussed and adopted on 16 and 17 December 2019, and exemptions from the landing obligation
In accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament Council and Commission documents (the "Regulation"), ClientEarth hereby submits a confirmatory application with regard to the Commission's initial reply to its request for documents with reference GestDem 2020/0450 relating to the adoption of the fishing opportunities for the Northeast Atlantic for 2020 under Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1380/2013 and exemptions from the landing obligation.
On 23 January 2020 ClientEarth requested access to the following information related to the total allowable catches (TACs) for fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic for 2020:
1.	"Any records, minutes or notes of meetings/discussions that took place between the Commission and the Member State representatives on the TACs for 2020, including any minutes or notes of Council working party/ministerial meetings taken by Commission staff, and any internal Commission briefings on the subject. We do not seek access to the Commission's legislative proposals for the 2020 TACs, unless such documents are annotated and/or contain negotiation directives. We also do not seek access to the documents that are publicly available in the Council’s document register, filed under interinstitutional code 2019/0235 (NLE) at the date of this request.
• WK 11790/2019 ADD 1 of 25/10/2019: Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing for 2020 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters - Calculation Tables for 2020 Discard Plan Exemptions and Deductions.
• WK 11790/2019 INIT of 25/10/2019: Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing for 2020 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters - Calculation Tables for 2020 Discard Plan Exemptions and Deductions.
5.	We would also like to have access to any documents relating to exemptions from the landing obligation for 2020 in the North Sea, North Western Waters and South Western Waters in the period between the STECF’s Expert Working Group 19-08 of June 2019 and the Commission’s adoption of the discard plans in October 2020, including any correspondence between the Commission and the Member States and any records, minutes or notes of meetings/discussions that took place between the Commission and the Member States regarding this matter."
The Commission replied on 7 February 2020, extending the deadline by a further 15 working days to 6 March 2020. On 6 March the Commission sent its initial decision (the "Initial Decision") disclosing a large number of files. It also stated that it did not hold any documents relating to points 2 and 4 of the request. Finally, it decided not to disclose the following information: personal information contained in documents under points 1 and 5 of the request in accordance with Article 4(1)(b) of the Regulation; part of the document under point 1 on the basis of Article 4(3), second subparagraph of the Regulation.
ClientEarth hereby requests a re-examination of the Initial Decision on the following grounds:
FAILURE TO FULLY DISCLOSE COMMISSION RECORDS OF DISCUSSIONS AT THE AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES COUNCIL OF 16 AND 17 DECEMBER 2019
The Initial Decision seems to indicate that there is only one document within its possession that would fall under point 1 of the request, i.e. the Commission's report of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of 16 and 17 December 2019. And indeed we only received one document that contains Member State positions on the TACs Regulation. However, there is some confusion in the Initial Decision because it also refers to documents in the plural, e.g. "The opinions included in these documents only reflect the understanding of the authors of the positions of the Members states expressed during the early stages of the negotiations and they were drafted under the legitimate expectation that they would not be made public." (emphasis added). In addition this sentence does not seem to apply to the one document disclosed, which does not seem to relate to the early stages of the negotiations. Therefore, we would first ask for clarification on this point.
The Initial Decision states that the parts of the document that were redacted (as well as other documents that may not have been disclosed or identified in the Initial Decision) are covered by the exception in Article 4(3) of the Regulation, second subparagraph. The redacted parts of the document "contain the description of the positions of the Member States, as well as the opinions thereon of the representatives of the European Commission, expressed during the negotiating phase, preceding the adoption of the decision on total allowable catch in December 2019."
According to the Initial Decision, the Commission was entitled to apply the exception because the document was drafted for internal purposes under the understanding that it would not be made public. Also, because it includes opinions that "reflect the understanding of the author of the positions of the Member States expressed during early stages of the negotiations". The Commission explains that "[f]or the negotiations to have a successful outcome, it is essential that there is an atmosphere of mutual trust between the negotiating parties and that the frank exchange of views in a preparatory phase of Commission officials can be protected from public disclosure." In addition to this, although the decision-making procedure has come to an end, the process of fixing fishing opportunities continues throughout the year.
These reasons do not meet the legal standard required by the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) for the application of the exception in Article 4(3) of the Regulation.
According to that consistent case law, “if an EU institution hearing a request for access to a document decides to refuse to grant that request on the basis of one of the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, it must, in principle, explain how access to that document could specifically and actually undermine the interest protected by that exception." Moreover, the risk of the interest being so undermined must be reasonably foreseeable and must not be purely hypothetical. (C 280/11 P, Council v Access Info Europe, para. 31 and the case-law cited.) The present decision does not give any explanation of why disclosure of Member State and Commission positions would “specifically and actually” undermine the decision-making process for setting fishing opportunities in the NorthEast Atlantic. The Initial Decision does not refer to any specific consequences, let alone to any consequences that could be considered as not being “merely hypothetical”.
More specifically with regard to Art. 4(3) of the Regulation, the CJEU has made clear that there is a high threshold to justify its application. For instance, it clarified that "[…] the mere reference to a risk of negative repercussions linked to access to internal documents and the possibility that interested parties may influence the procedure do not suffice to prove that disclosure of those documents would seriously undermine the decision-making process of the institution concerned." (C-60/15 P Saint-Gobain Glass v Commission, para. 83.) This requirement is an expression of the general principle that exceptions "must be interpreted and applied strictly" because they "depart from the principle of the widest possible public access to documents." (C 64/05 P Sweden v Commission, para. 66, C 506/08 P Sweden v MyTravel and Commission, para. 75 and C-60/15 P Saint-Gobain Glass v Commission, para. 63.)
The threshold is further increased by the fact that the document in question is a legislative document that contains environmental information.
Article 12(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides a clear definition of "legislative documents", that is "documents drawn up or received in the course of procedures for the adoption of acts which are legally binding in or for the Member States". The document at issue meets this definition because it was drawn up in the course of the procedure for the adoption of the TACs Regulation, which is legally binding in and for the Member States.
1.	"any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on:
3.	(iii) measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in points (i) and (ii) as well as measures or activities designed to protect those elements".
4.	"the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements."
The document contains information about the TACs for 2020, which regulate the exploitation of stocks of fish and other marine species. Therefore, they have a direct impact on biological diversity in coastal and marine areas. As such, it contains "environmental information" within the meaning of the Aarhus Regulation.
Based on the second sentence of Art. 6(1) of Regulation 1367/2006, read in light of recital 15 thereof, the exception in Art. 4(3) of the Regulation is accordingly "to be interpreted in a restrictive way as regards environmental information, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure of the requested information, thereby aiming for greater transparency in respect of that information" (C-57/16 P ClientEarth v Commission, para. 100). Therefore, the requirement to interpret the exceptions to disclosure restrictively "is all the more compelling where the documents communication of which is requested contain environmental information" (C-60/15 P Saint-Gobain Glass v Commission, para. 78). Accordingly, the justification for non-disclosure provided by the Commission should have equally been more compelling.
The justification provided in the decision does not meet the high standard of justification that follows from the Court's jurisprudence summarized above.
It is also relevant that to have access to positions taken by Member States is of fundamental importance to ensure transparent and democratic decision-making, rather than undermining a decision-making procedure. Citizens have a right to know what positions Member State governments take on EU level in order to ensure that they can be held accountable at national level. In the absence of such transparency, Member State governments can blame EU decision-making procedures, without admitting to their own contribution, thus further fuelling Euroscepticism.
In any case, it should be noted that there is already public access to the so-called bible through the Council's documents register, which records the Member State positions during the negotiations prior to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 16 and 17 December 2020. Therefore, it is very unclear how access to the Commission's record could undermine the decision-making process.
In summary, the Initial Decision fails to adequately justify non-disclosure of the statements of individual Member States and the Commission based on Art. 4(3), second paragraph, of the Regulation and these parts of the document should therefore be disclosed.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO COMMISSION RECORDS OF RELEVANT COUNCIL PREPARATORY MEETINGS
We are also concerned that the Commission has failed to identify any records within its possession of Council working party or COREPER meetings, such documents having been made available to us in previous years (e.g. https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/5394..., https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/5394...). As noted above, the Initial Decision also seems to refer to documents that record the positions of Member States and the Commission at earlier points in the negotiations than the December Council. As confirmed by the CJEU (Case T-653/16 Malta v Commission, para. 63), it is well-established practice for the Secretary-General to verify as part of the assessment of a confirmatory application whether all documents falling under the scope of the request have been identified at the initial stage. This is especially the case where the applicant, as in this confirmatory application, contests that the initial list of documents was complete. ClientEarth therefore requests the General Secretary to conduct such a verification of the scope of the initial request.
If the Commission is not in possession of records of Council working party and COREPER meetings, ClientEarth submits that failure to record such meetings infringes EU transparency rules.
As stated above, records of working party and COREPER meetings regarding fishing opportunities constitute legislative documents containing environmental information, which enjoy a stricter application of the EU's transparency rules. The transparency obligations enshrined in Article 10(3) TEU, Article 15(3) TFEU, Regulation 1049/2001 and Regulation 1367/2006 are contingent on the institutions drawing up and retaining documents relating to their functions. Institutions cannot simply frustrate the right to access documents by failing to document their activities in sufficient detail. In case T-264/04 WWF European Policy Programme v the Council of the European Union, the Court of First Instance held that “it would be contrary to the requirement of transparency which underlies Regulation No 1049/2001 for institutions to rely on the fact that documents do not exist in order to avoid the application of that regulation. In order that the right of access to documents may be exercised effectively, the institutions concerned must, in so far as possible and in a non-arbitrary and predictable manner, draw up and retain documentation relating to their activities.”
OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSURE
Even if the exception in the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the Regulation did apply to the Member State and Commission positions recorded in Commission notes of Council meetings, there is an overriding public interest in their disclosure.
The Commission’s proposed TACs take account of the scientific advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), and have the objective of bringing the stocks above levels that can deliver MSY by achieving the corresponding MSY exploitation rates by "2015 where possible and on a progressive and incremental basis at the latest by 2020". Recital 7 to the CFP Basic Regulation states that, "Achieving those exploitation rates by a later date should be allowed only if achieving them by 2015 would seriously jeopardise the social and economic sustainability of the fishing fleets involved." Therefore, in order for EU citizens to be able to scrutinise and hold their national politicians to account for the role they play in respecting the 2020 MSY deadline, it is necessary to have access to the positions they defend during the negotiations.
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO AGREED QUOTA DEDUCTIONS (POINT 2 OF THE REQUEST)
ClientEarth appreciates the information relating to the proposed quota deductions (to account for exemption discards) which we received from the Council (the documents entitled 'WK 11790/2019 INIT' and 'WK 11790/2019 ADD 1'). However, like last year, we are concerned that the Commission has not provided any information relating to the agreed quota deductions.
Access to information on the agreed deductions is crucial to reliably assess whether the agreed TACs (after deductions have been applied) are in line with scientific advice. The TAC Regulation itself only contains the final agreed TACs, without the applied deduction amount being specified. Therefore, a list of the proposed and agreed deductions as well as the TACs before the adjustments were applied, is particularly important to allow at least a direct comparison of the ‘pre-adjustment TACs’ with the relevant ICES landings or catch advice, respectively.
If the Commission does not possess documents containing such calculations, could you confirm that the same proposed deduction percentage was applied to the agreed TACs?
We also note that for a number of stocks the Commission's proposal and the agreed TACs appear to follow the total scientific catch advice (i.e. no deductions were made), even though the stock is subject to exemptions. Examples include sole in area 7h-k and in the western Channel and boarfish (SOL/7HJK., SOL/07E., BOR/678-), for which the TACs were proposed and set at the total catch advice of 213 t, 1478 t and 19152 t, respectively, even though they fall under de minimis exemptions specified in the North and South Western Waters demersal discard plans (Art. 8(c) and (d) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/2034 and Art. 6(k) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/2033).) Failing to apply deductions to account for anticipated dead exemption discards means that such TACs allow for unsustainable exploitation since such discards beyond the TAC level can continue. Could you confirm that no deductions were made for these stocks, and whether this means that the discards anticipated under the relevant exemptions were considered negligible?
We confirm that this confirmatory application does not concern the redaction of personal information under Article 4(1)(b) of the Regulation.
ve_sg.accessdoc (SG), Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca 30 de marzo de 2020
[1]Ares(2020)1815970 - FW: Internal review of access to documents request
- Access to information regarding total allowable catches (TACs) of EU
fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic discussed and adopted on 16 and 17
December 2019, and exemptions from the landing obligation
Thank you for your email dated 27/03/2020 by which you request, pursuant
MARE in reply to your initial application GESTDEM 2020/450.
to documents which was registered on 30/03/2020 (Ares(2020)1815804).
Your application will be handled within 15 working days (23/04/2020). In
ve_sg.accessdoc (SG), Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca 23 de abril de 2020
[5]Ares(2020)2203462 - Your confirmatory application for access to
documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – GESTDEM 2020/0450
We refer to your email of 27 March 2020, registered on 30 March 2020, by
prescribed time limit which expires on 23 April 2020. Consequently, we
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01D61980.1DA529C0
6. file:///tmp/foiextract20200423-6871-1sh96l0#_ftn1
8. file:///tmp/foiextract20200423-6871-1sh96l0#_ftnref1
ve_sg.accessdoc (SG), Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca 15 de mayo de 2020
[5]Ares(2020)2567315 - Your confirmatory application for access to
documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – GESTDEM 2020/450
1049/2001"). We also refer to our first holding letter of 23 April 2020 by
This extended time limit expires on 15 May 2020.
analysis of your request and to take a final decision.
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01D62AA6.86294E40
Anne Friel 24 de junio de 2020
The deadline for your response to our confirmatory application expired more than one month ago. Would it be possible to let me know when I can expect your response?
ve_mare.acces.documents (MARE), Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca 24 de junio de 2020
[1]Ares(2020)3289688 - RE: access to documents request - Access to
the Northeast Atlantic discussed and adopted on 16 and 17 December 2019,
We have forwarded your request to SG CONFIRMATORY APPLICATIONS, which is
dealing with confirmatory requests.
ve_sg.accessdoc (SG), Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca 24 de junio de 2020
[1]Ares(2020)3301501 - FW: access to documents request - Access to
We would like to assure you that we are fully working on the decision in
relation to your request, which is in the process of being internally
approved. Considering that these internal consultations in relation to
your file are not yet finalised, unfortunately we cannot commit to a
specific deadline. We would like to assure you that and we are doing our
utmost to provide you with a reply as soon as possible.
SG C.1 – Transparency, Document Management