Hej Listan! 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.
Erik, har du någon take på detta?
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: ACTA documents Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:09:31 +0000 From: Registry ECJ ECJ.Registry@curia.europa.eu To: andreas@romab.com andreas@romab.com
Dear Mr Jonsson,
Firstly my apologies for the delay in replying to your e-mail - this is due to the fact that the past weeks have been particularly busy in the registry and also we have been moving to new premises.
Questions from the Court to parties to proceedings before the Court are procedural documents and, as such, are treated as confidential and are not disclosed to third parties. The document was not notified to the European Parliament. It was, of course, notified to the Commission as it was a question to that institution. As far as I am aware there has been no request to make the document public.
I hope that this information is of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely,
L F Hewlett Principal Administrator ECJ Registry
Andreas Jonsson andreas@romab.com 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/ .
On 09/09/2013 05:29 PM, Linus Nordberg wrote:
Andreas Jonsson andreas@romab.com 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...
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:H...
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...
Eller vad tycker listan?
//Erik
Nu har jag sovit på saken och fått lite feedback. Ny version enligt som följer:
Subject: Renewed request for one ACTA document To: jose-manuel.barroso@EC Cc: listan@DFRI
Dear President Barroso,
In the light of Case C-506/08 P (p. 81-82)[0], the Court's email to DFRI 14 August 2013[1] and the provisions of Regulation 1049/2001[2] which require your staff to assist us on how applications for access to documents can be made (6.4), to clarify our application would it not be sufficiently precise (6.2), and to exercise our rights (1.14) we hereby ask you to make the document we have been asking for[3] available to the public and send it to us without further delay, if necessary by asking the Court for permission to do so.
Would you be of the opinion that you are prohibited from asking the Court for permission, please state your reasons in detail.
Please note that the provisions of Regulation 1049/2001 referred to above does not exclude that citizens are informed about that the President of the Commission may ask the Court to make documents public which do not fall within the scope of Regulation 1049/2001.
Please also note that your staff has referred extensively to the content of this document in a press conference almost one year ago[4] and that your staff has described the content of the document in detail in the email DFRI received 19 June 2013 [5].
With best regards,
[0] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=107935&am... [1] https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/ECJ-response-2013-08-14.txt [2] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/register/pdf/r1049_en.pdf [3] https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/mail-acta-docs-barroso.txt [4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCBTFh3IhQY [5] https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/EC-response-2013-06-19.txt
Lika roligt varje gång :-)
//Erik
On 09/09/2013 07:09 PM, Erik Josefsson wrote:
On 09/09/2013 05:29 PM, Linus Nordberg wrote:
Andreas Jonsson andreas@romab.com 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=ENNu 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:HTMLSka 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=ENEller vad tycker listan?
//Erik
-
Andreas Jonsson -
Erik Josefsson -
Linus Nordberg