|
On 09/09/2013 05:29 PM, Linus Nordberg
wrote:
Andreas Jonsson <andreas@xxxxxxxxx> 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
|