On 09/09/2013 05:29 PM, Linus Nordberg wrote:
> Andreas Jonsson <[email protected]> wrote
> Mon, 09 Sep 2013 17:15:23 +0200:
>
> | Jag får väl också be om ursäkt för att jag varit dålig på att fwd:a till
> | listan. dags att planera nästa steg :) Här är lite läsgodis iaf.
>
> Tack, Andreas.
>
> Jag har uppdaterat https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/ .
Snyggt!
Lite från höften så känns det som om vi äntligen fått en konkret motsägelse:
Kommissionen sa 5 februari 2013:
"The European Parliament having itself submitted written
observations in case A-1/12 *the question asked by the Court of
Justice* as well as the letter of the Commission of 20 December 2012
*have been served also on the European Parliament*."
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2013-000018&language=EN
Nu säger alltså domstolen att dom inte skickade frågan till parlamentet
(precis som parlamentet redan sagt).
Men så säger domstolen också att "there has been no request to make the
document public". Man kan ju fråga sig om det finns nåt i regelverket
som förbjuder kommissionen att fråga domstolen om dom får släppa ett
dokument som allmänheten (DFRI) frågar efter? Det tror jag inte att det
gör. Sen kan man ju vända på det också - påbjuder regelverket
kommissionen att dom ska släppa efterfrågande dokument om dom kan? Och
det tror jag nog att regelverket påbjuder...
Kommissionens argument att dom inte kan släppa för att dokumentet är ett
"procedural document" (se
https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/EC-response-2013-06-19.txt) är
alltså lite tunt eftersom domstolen inte sa "Kul att ni vill veta, men
vi släpper *aldrig* procedurella dokument". Om man smakar på det lilla
"as such" som är instoppat i andra paragrafen så känns det tvärtom som
om domstolen säger att dom gärna skulle släppt, bara kommissionen frågat!
Till saken hör nämligen att domstolen sagt att det är stor skillnad på
"före" och "efter" en beslutsprocess är avslutad (Case C-506/08 P):
81. It is true that, as the General Court essentially stated in
paragraph 45 of the judgment under appeal, the mere possibility of
using the exception in question to refuse access to documents
containing opinions for internal use as part of deliberations and
preliminary consultations within the institution concerned is not in
any way affected by the fact that the decision has been adopted.
That does not, however, mean that the assessment which the
institution concerned is called upon to make in order to establish
whether or not the disclosure of one of those documents is likely
seriously to undermine its decision-making process must not take
account of the fact that the administrative procedure to which those
documents relate has been closed.
82. The reasons invoked by an institution and capable of justifying
refusal of access to such a document of which communication has been
requested before the closure of the administrative procedure might
not be sufficient for refusing disclosure of the same document after
the adoption of the decision, without that institution explaining
the specific reasons why is considers that the closure of the
procedure does not exclude the possibility that that refusal of
access may remain justified having regard to the risk of a serious
undermining of its decision-making process (see, by analogy with the
second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, Sweden and
Others v API and Commission, paragraphs 132 to 134).
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0506:EN:HTML
Ska sova på saken...
.. men typ man skulle kunna säga nåt sånt här:
Dear Commission,
In the light of Case C-506/08 P (p. 81-82), the Court's email to
DFRI [1], and the provisions of Regulation 1049/2001 which require
the staff of the institution addressed to "assist citizens
exercising their rights" (1.14) and "If an application is not
sufficiently precise, the institution shall ask the applicant to
clarify the application and shall assist the applicant in doing so"
(6.2) we hereby ask the Commission to ask the Court for permission
to make the document available to the public and send it to us
without further delay.
Would the Commission be of the opinion that it is prohibited to do
so, please state the reasons in detail.
Please note that the Commission shall provide information and
assistance to citizens on how applications for access to documents
can be made (6.4). This does not exclude information about that the
Commission may ask the Court to make the document public.
Would the Commission be of the opinion that it is prohibited from
informing the public that the Commission may ask the Court to make a
document public, please state the reasons in detail.
Further, the exceptions as laid down in Regulation 1049/2001 Article
4 paragraphs 1 to 3 shall only apply for the period during which
protection is justified on the basis of the content of the document.
As the Commission stated in public almost one year ago that the
content of the document was the reason the Commission decided to
withdraw its referral of ACTA to the Court [2], protection is no
longer justified.
DFRI's first application did not ask the Commission to ask the Court
for permission to make the document available to the public, it was
clearly not sufficiently precise. It was also based on the false
information from the Commission that the document had "been served
also on the European Parliament"[3]. Following from Case C-506/08 P,
Court's email to DFRI and the provisions of Regulation 1049/2001,
this has as a consequence that the document itself can be disclosed
by the Commission, would the Commission assist us in exercising our
rights.
With best regards,
[1] https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/ECJ-response-2013-08-14.txt
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCBTFh3IhQY
[3]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2013-000018&language=EN
Eller vad tycker listan?
//Erik
