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
|