Auf Mastodon teilen

Antrag nach EU-Verordnungen 1049/2001 sowie 1367/2006 Sehr geehrte<< Anrede >> auf Basis der Verordnungen 1049/2001 sowie 1367/2006 bitte ich Sie um Übersendung von Dokumenten, die folgende Informationen enthalten:

Sehr geehrter Herr Fanta, vielen Dank für Ihre E-Mail vom 19/07/2019. Wir bestätigen hiermit den Eingang Ihres Antrags auf Akteneinsicht, der am 23/07/2019 unter Aktenzeichen GestDem 2019/4295 registriert wurde. Gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 über den Zugang der Öffentlichkeit zu Dokumenten des Europäischen Parlaments, des Rates und der Kommission wird Ihr Antrag innerhalb von 15 Arbeitstagen bearbeitet. Die Frist läuft am 13/08/2019 ab. Falls diese Frist verlängert werden muss, werden Sie rechtzeitig darüber informiert. Mit freundlichen Grüßen

[Ares(2019)5044607 - Your applications for access to documents Ref. GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4169, 2019/4293, 2019/4295](https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/documentInfoDetails.do?documentId=080166e5c653545e) * Sent by ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. All responses have to be sent to this email address. Envoyé par ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. Toutes les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique. * Dear Mr Fanta, We refer to your e-mails, dated 9, 17 and 19 July 2019 in which you make five requests for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (hereinafter ‘Regulation 1049/2001’), registered under the above-mentioned reference numbers. In all the applications, you made the following request: ‘- List of lobby meetings your Directorate-General held with [Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon, respectively] or its intermediaries. The list should include: date, individuals attending and organisational affiliation, the issues discussed, - Minutes and other reports of these meetings - All correspondence including attachments (i.e. any emails, correspondence or telephone call notes) between your DG (including the Commissioner and the Cabinet) and [the respective company] or any intermediaries representing its interests. - All documents prepared for the meetings and exchanged in the course of the meetings between both parties.’ In your response of 24 July 2019 to our clarification request dated 23 July 2019 (our reference, Ares(2019)4794571), you explained that the timeframe of the requests should be ‘the tenure of the Juncker Commission’. Regarding the term ‘intermediaries’ you mentioned that it should encompass ‘employees of the companies as well as other interceding explicitly on their behalf, including industry or trade organizations’. Finally, you mentioned you wanted documents related to ‘meetings of the Director-General and the cabinet’ and ‘with officials such as head of units or above.’ Each of these requests is already very wide in scope as it covers a very high number of meetings of a large group of persons and/or entities. In addition, taking into consideration the circumstances of the introduction, the timing, the scope, as well as the wording of these requests, the seemingly separate requests add up to an even wider scope. In this respect, the Court of First instance (now ‘General Court’) confirmed in its Ryanair judgment (Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2010, Ryanair v Commission, T- 494/08, EU:T:2010:511, paragraph 34) that Article 6(3) may not be evaded by splitting an application into several, seemingly separate, parts. As stated by the EU Courts, the European Commission needs to respect the principle of proportionality and ensure that the interest of the applicant for access is balanced against the workload resulting from the processing of the application for access in order to safeguard the interests of good administration. Due to the scope of your requests, the work needed to deal with your application would entail multiple searches for documents, which involve the entire DG CONNECT and Cabinet covering the following steps: -              Multiple searches for the identification of the documents related to the meetings, -              Retrieval and establishment of a complete list of the documents falling under the scope of your requests, -              Scanning of the documents which are not in pdf format, -              Preliminary individual assessment of the content of the documents in light of the exceptions contained in Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001), -              For many of the documents, third party consultations under Article 4(4) and/or 4(5) of Regulation 1049/2001, -              Final  assessment of the documents in light of the comments received, -              Redaction of those parts of the documents to which one or several exceptions apply, -              Preparation and finalisation of the reply for the requests, -              Preparation of the replies and the documents for dispatch. It follows from the above that the work needed for the treatment of your requests constitutes a severe administrative burden. Furthermore, due to the wide temporal and material scope of the requests, the work cannot be expected to be completed within the time limits set out in Article 7 of Regulation 1049/2001. Article 6(3) of the Regulation 1049/2001 provides that, in the event of an application relating to very large number of documents, the institution concerned may confer with the applicant informally with a view to finding a fair solution. In accordance with the case law of the Union Courts, the proposal for a fair solution aims to balance the interest of the applicant against the workload resulting from the processing of the application in order to safeguard the interests of good administration (Judgments of 6 December 2001, Council v Hautala, Case C 353/99 P, EU:C:2001: 661, para. 30, and of 2 October 2014, Strack v Commission, Case C 127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, para.27). Such solution can only concern the content or the number of documents applied for, not the deadline for replying (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014 in case C- 127/13, Guido Strack v Commission, paragraphs 26-28). This means that the scope of the request must be reduced in a way that would enable its treatment within the extended deadline of 15 + 15 working days. Based on the above-mentioned provision, we kindly ask you to specify the objective of your requests, your specific interest in the requested documents (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014 in case C-127/13, Guido Strack v Commission, paragraph 28; Judgment of the General Court (then 'Court of First Instance') of 22 May 2012 in case T-344/08, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission, paragraph 105 ) and to narrow down the scope of your requests, so as to reduce it to a more manageable amount of documents. According to our first estimates and taking into account the other access to documents requests being handled within DG CONNECT at the same time (including for example, handling another request lodged by you – GestDem 2019/4113), the overall workload of the concerned staff during the same period, the human resources available, the need to safeguard good administration, we propose that you specify two meetings from the transparency lists (links to meetings of  [the Director-General](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=aae7124c-b839-4139-9ffe-ad5660fe9404), [Commissioner Gabriel](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=29935dac-3440-471f-b08e-c8fedd813724) and  her [Cabinet](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=9cf470f6-b423-4424-954b-839539dbf681)) for each of the requests: - GestDem 2019/3996 (Google); - GestDem 2019/3998 (Facebook); - GestDem 2019/4169 (Apple); - GestDem 2019/4293 (Microsoft); - GestDem 2019/4295 (Amazon). In addition, we consider that a limitation concerning the categories of documents is necessary. We consider that within the given timeframe we could identify and assess the release of briefings, documents presented at the meeting and meetings’ minutes. In case you are not able to specify the meetings, we propose as a fair solution limiting the requests to the documents related to two of the most recent meetings listed in the websites above mentioned which relate to meetings held by DG-CONNECT’s Director-General, Commissioner Gabriel and members of her Cabinet. We also propose to limit your requests to the following categories of documents: briefings, documents presented at the meetings, and minutes. In order to enable us to respect the time limits of Regulation 1049/2001, we would ask you for a swift response to our proposal for a fair solution, and within three working days at the latest. Please send your response by email to the following address: [<<E-Mail-Adresse>>](mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>) In the absence of a reply within three working days, we will unilaterally restrict the scope of your applications to those parts that can be dealt with within the extended deadline of 30 working days counting from the date of registration of your applications. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Access to Documents Team []() European Commission DG Connect – ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS BU25 – Avenue de Beaulieu 25 B-1160 Brussels/Belgium

[Ares(2019)5044607 - Your applications for access to documents Ref. GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4169, 2019/4293, 2019/4295](https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/documentInfoDetails.do?documentId=080166e5c653545e) * Sent by ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. All responses have to be sent to this email address. Envoyé par ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. Toutes les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique. * Dear Mr Fanta, We refer to your e-mails, dated 9, 17 and 19 July 2019 in which you make five requests for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (hereinafter ‘Regulation 1049/2001’), registered under the above-mentioned reference numbers. In all the applications, you made the following request: ‘- List of lobby meetings your Directorate-General held with [Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon, respectively] or its intermediaries. The list should include: date, individuals attending and organisational affiliation, the issues discussed, - Minutes and other reports of these meetings - All correspondence including attachments (i.e. any emails, correspondence or telephone call notes) between your DG (including the Commissioner and the Cabinet) and [the respective company] or any intermediaries representing its interests. - All documents prepared for the meetings and exchanged in the course of the meetings between both parties.’ In your response of 24 July 2019 to our clarification request dated 23 July 2019 (our reference, Ares(2019)4794571), you explained that the timeframe of the requests should be ‘the tenure of the Juncker Commission’. Regarding the term ‘intermediaries’ you mentioned that it should encompass ‘employees of the companies as well as other interceding explicitly on their behalf, including industry or trade organizations’. Finally, you mentioned you wanted documents related to ‘meetings of the Director-General and the cabinet’ and ‘with officials such as head of units or above.’ Each of these requests is already very wide in scope as it covers a very high number of meetings of a large group of persons and/or entities. In addition, taking into consideration the circumstances of the introduction, the timing, the scope, as well as the wording of these requests, the seemingly separate requests add up to an even wider scope. In this respect, the Court of First instance (now ‘General Court’) confirmed in its Ryanair judgment (Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2010, Ryanair v Commission, T- 494/08, EU:T:2010:511, paragraph 34) that Article 6(3) may not be evaded by splitting an application into several, seemingly separate, parts. As stated by the EU Courts, the European Commission needs to respect the principle of proportionality and ensure that the interest of the applicant for access is balanced against the workload resulting from the processing of the application for access in order to safeguard the interests of good administration. Due to the scope of your requests, the work needed to deal with your application would entail multiple searches for documents, which involve the entire DG CONNECT and Cabinet covering the following steps: -              Multiple searches for the identification of the documents related to the meetings, -              Retrieval and establishment of a complete list of the documents falling under the scope of your requests, -              Scanning of the documents which are not in pdf format, -              Preliminary individual assessment of the content of the documents in light of the exceptions contained in Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001), -              For many of the documents, third party consultations under Article 4(4) and/or 4(5) of Regulation 1049/2001, -              Final  assessment of the documents in light of the comments received, -              Redaction of those parts of the documents to which one or several exceptions apply, -              Preparation and finalisation of the reply for the requests, -              Preparation of the replies and the documents for dispatch. It follows from the above that the work needed for the treatment of your requests constitutes a severe administrative burden. Furthermore, due to the wide temporal and material scope of the requests, the work cannot be expected to be completed within the time limits set out in Article 7 of Regulation 1049/2001. Article 6(3) of the Regulation 1049/2001 provides that, in the event of an application relating to very large number of documents, the institution concerned may confer with the applicant informally with a view to finding a fair solution. In accordance with the case law of the Union Courts, the proposal for a fair solution aims to balance the interest of the applicant against the workload resulting from the processing of the application in order to safeguard the interests of good administration (Judgments of 6 December 2001, Council v Hautala, Case C 353/99 P, EU:C:2001: 661, para. 30, and of 2 October 2014, Strack v Commission, Case C 127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, para.27). Such solution can only concern the content or the number of documents applied for, not the deadline for replying (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014 in case C- 127/13, Guido Strack v Commission, paragraphs 26-28). This means that the scope of the request must be reduced in a way that would enable its treatment within the extended deadline of 15 + 15 working days. Based on the above-mentioned provision, we kindly ask you to specify the objective of your requests, your specific interest in the requested documents (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014 in case C-127/13, Guido Strack v Commission, paragraph 28; Judgment of the General Court (then 'Court of First Instance') of 22 May 2012 in case T-344/08, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission, paragraph 105 ) and to narrow down the scope of your requests, so as to reduce it to a more manageable amount of documents. According to our first estimates and taking into account the other access to documents requests being handled within DG CONNECT at the same time (including for example, handling another request lodged by you – GestDem 2019/4113), the overall workload of the concerned staff during the same period, the human resources available, the need to safeguard good administration, we propose that you specify two meetings from the transparency lists (links to meetings of  [the Director-General](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=aae7124c-b839-4139-9ffe-ad5660fe9404), [Commissioner Gabriel](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=29935dac-3440-471f-b08e-c8fedd813724) and  her [Cabinet](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=9cf470f6-b423-4424-954b-839539dbf681)) for each of the requests: - GestDem 2019/3996 (Google); - GestDem 2019/3998 (Facebook); - GestDem 2019/4169 (Apple); - GestDem 2019/4293 (Microsoft); - GestDem 2019/4295 (Amazon). In addition, we consider that a limitation concerning the categories of documents is necessary. We consider that within the given timeframe we could identify and assess the release of briefings, documents presented at the meeting and meetings’ minutes. In case you are not able to specify the meetings, we propose as a fair solution limiting the requests to the documents related to two of the most recent meetings listed in the websites above mentioned which relate to meetings held by DG-CONNECT’s Director-General, Commissioner Gabriel and members of her Cabinet. We also propose to limit your requests to the following categories of documents: briefings, documents presented at the meetings, and minutes. In order to enable us to respect the time limits of Regulation 1049/2001, we would ask you for a swift response to our proposal for a fair solution, and within three working days at the latest. Please send your response by email to the following address: [<<E-Mail-Adresse>>](mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>) In the absence of a reply within three working days, we will unilaterally restrict the scope of your applications to those parts that can be dealt with within the extended deadline of 30 working days counting from the date of registration of your applications. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Access to Documents Team []() European Commission DG Connect – ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS BU25 – Avenue de Beaulieu 25 B-1160 Brussels/Belgium

[Ares(2019)5044607 - Your applications for access to documents Ref. GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4169, 2019/4293, 2019/4295](https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/documentInfoDetails.do?documentId=080166e5c653545e) * Sent by ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. All responses have to be sent to this email address. Envoyé par ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. Toutes les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique. * Dear Mr Fanta, We refer to your e-mails, dated 9, 17 and 19 July 2019 in which you make five requests for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (hereinafter ‘Regulation 1049/2001’), registered under the above-mentioned reference numbers. In all the applications, you made the following request: ‘- List of lobby meetings your Directorate-General held with [Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon, respectively] or its intermediaries. The list should include: date, individuals attending and organisational affiliation, the issues discussed, - Minutes and other reports of these meetings - All correspondence including attachments (i.e. any emails, correspondence or telephone call notes) between your DG (including the Commissioner and the Cabinet) and [the respective company] or any intermediaries representing its interests. - All documents prepared for the meetings and exchanged in the course of the meetings between both parties.’ In your response of 24 July 2019 to our clarification request dated 23 July 2019 (our reference, Ares(2019)4794571), you explained that the timeframe of the requests should be ‘the tenure of the Juncker Commission’. Regarding the term ‘intermediaries’ you mentioned that it should encompass ‘employees of the companies as well as other interceding explicitly on their behalf, including industry or trade organizations’. Finally, you mentioned you wanted documents related to ‘meetings of the Director-General and the cabinet’ and ‘with officials such as head of units or above.’ Each of these requests is already very wide in scope as it covers a very high number of meetings of a large group of persons and/or entities. In addition, taking into consideration the circumstances of the introduction, the timing, the scope, as well as the wording of these requests, the seemingly separate requests add up to an even wider scope. In this respect, the Court of First instance (now ‘General Court’) confirmed in its Ryanair judgment (Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2010, Ryanair v Commission, T- 494/08, EU:T:2010:511, paragraph 34) that Article 6(3) may not be evaded by splitting an application into several, seemingly separate, parts. As stated by the EU Courts, the European Commission needs to respect the principle of proportionality and ensure that the interest of the applicant for access is balanced against the workload resulting from the processing of the application for access in order to safeguard the interests of good administration. Due to the scope of your requests, the work needed to deal with your application would entail multiple searches for documents, which involve the entire DG CONNECT and Cabinet covering the following steps: -              Multiple searches for the identification of the documents related to the meetings, -              Retrieval and establishment of a complete list of the documents falling under the scope of your requests, -              Scanning of the documents which are not in pdf format, -              Preliminary individual assessment of the content of the documents in light of the exceptions contained in Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001), -              For many of the documents, third party consultations under Article 4(4) and/or 4(5) of Regulation 1049/2001, -              Final  assessment of the documents in light of the comments received, -              Redaction of those parts of the documents to which one or several exceptions apply, -              Preparation and finalisation of the reply for the requests, -              Preparation of the replies and the documents for dispatch. It follows from the above that the work needed for the treatment of your requests constitutes a severe administrative burden. Furthermore, due to the wide temporal and material scope of the requests, the work cannot be expected to be completed within the time limits set out in Article 7 of Regulation 1049/2001. Article 6(3) of the Regulation 1049/2001 provides that, in the event of an application relating to very large number of documents, the institution concerned may confer with the applicant informally with a view to finding a fair solution. In accordance with the case law of the Union Courts, the proposal for a fair solution aims to balance the interest of the applicant against the workload resulting from the processing of the application in order to safeguard the interests of good administration (Judgments of 6 December 2001, Council v Hautala, Case C 353/99 P, EU:C:2001: 661, para. 30, and of 2 October 2014, Strack v Commission, Case C 127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, para.27). Such solution can only concern the content or the number of documents applied for, not the deadline for replying (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014 in case C- 127/13, Guido Strack v Commission, paragraphs 26-28). This means that the scope of the request must be reduced in a way that would enable its treatment within the extended deadline of 15 + 15 working days. Based on the above-mentioned provision, we kindly ask you to specify the objective of your requests, your specific interest in the requested documents (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014 in case C-127/13, Guido Strack v Commission, paragraph 28; Judgment of the General Court (then 'Court of First Instance') of 22 May 2012 in case T-344/08, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission, paragraph 105 ) and to narrow down the scope of your requests, so as to reduce it to a more manageable amount of documents. According to our first estimates and taking into account the other access to documents requests being handled within DG CONNECT at the same time (including for example, handling another request lodged by you – GestDem 2019/4113), the overall workload of the concerned staff during the same period, the human resources available, the need to safeguard good administration, we propose that you specify two meetings from the transparency lists (links to meetings of  [the Director-General](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=aae7124c-b839-4139-9ffe-ad5660fe9404), [Commissioner Gabriel](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=29935dac-3440-471f-b08e-c8fedd813724) and  her [Cabinet](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=9cf470f6-b423-4424-954b-839539dbf681)) for each of the requests: - GestDem 2019/3996 (Google); - GestDem 2019/3998 (Facebook); - GestDem 2019/4169 (Apple); - GestDem 2019/4293 (Microsoft); - GestDem 2019/4295 (Amazon). In addition, we consider that a limitation concerning the categories of documents is necessary. We consider that within the given timeframe we could identify and assess the release of briefings, documents presented at the meeting and meetings’ minutes. In case you are not able to specify the meetings, we propose as a fair solution limiting the requests to the documents related to two of the most recent meetings listed in the websites above mentioned which relate to meetings held by DG-CONNECT’s Director-General, Commissioner Gabriel and members of her Cabinet. We also propose to limit your requests to the following categories of documents: briefings, documents presented at the meetings, and minutes. In order to enable us to respect the time limits of Regulation 1049/2001, we would ask you for a swift response to our proposal for a fair solution, and within three working days at the latest. Please send your response by email to the following address: [<<E-Mail-Adresse>>](mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>) In the absence of a reply within three working days, we will unilaterally restrict the scope of your applications to those parts that can be dealt with within the extended deadline of 30 working days counting from the date of registration of your applications. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Access to Documents Team []() European Commission DG Connect – ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS BU25 – Avenue de Beaulieu 25 B-1160 Brussels/Belgium

[Ares(2019)5044607 - Your applications for access to documents Ref. GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4169, 2019/4293, 2019/4295](https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/documentInfoDetails.do?documentId=080166e5c653545e) * Sent by ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. All responses have to be sent to this email address. Envoyé par ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. Toutes les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique. * Dear Mr Fanta, We refer to your e-mails, dated 9, 17 and 19 July 2019 in which you make five requests for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (hereinafter ‘Regulation 1049/2001’), registered under the above-mentioned reference numbers. In all the applications, you made the following request: ‘- List of lobby meetings your Directorate-General held with [Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon, respectively] or its intermediaries. The list should include: date, individuals attending and organisational affiliation, the issues discussed, - Minutes and other reports of these meetings - All correspondence including attachments (i.e. any emails, correspondence or telephone call notes) between your DG (including the Commissioner and the Cabinet) and [the respective company] or any intermediaries representing its interests. - All documents prepared for the meetings and exchanged in the course of the meetings between both parties.’ In your response of 24 July 2019 to our clarification request dated 23 July 2019 (our reference, Ares(2019)4794571), you explained that the timeframe of the requests should be ‘the tenure of the Juncker Commission’. Regarding the term ‘intermediaries’ you mentioned that it should encompass ‘employees of the companies as well as other interceding explicitly on their behalf, including industry or trade organizations’. Finally, you mentioned you wanted documents related to ‘meetings of the Director-General and the cabinet’ and ‘with officials such as head of units or above.’ Each of these requests is already very wide in scope as it covers a very high number of meetings of a large group of persons and/or entities. In addition, taking into consideration the circumstances of the introduction, the timing, the scope, as well as the wording of these requests, the seemingly separate requests add up to an even wider scope. In this respect, the Court of First instance (now ‘General Court’) confirmed in its Ryanair judgment (Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2010, Ryanair v Commission, T- 494/08, EU:T:2010:511, paragraph 34) that Article 6(3) may not be evaded by splitting an application into several, seemingly separate, parts. As stated by the EU Courts, the European Commission needs to respect the principle of proportionality and ensure that the interest of the applicant for access is balanced against the workload resulting from the processing of the application for access in order to safeguard the interests of good administration. Due to the scope of your requests, the work needed to deal with your application would entail multiple searches for documents, which involve the entire DG CONNECT and Cabinet covering the following steps: -              Multiple searches for the identification of the documents related to the meetings, -              Retrieval and establishment of a complete list of the documents falling under the scope of your requests, -              Scanning of the documents which are not in pdf format, -              Preliminary individual assessment of the content of the documents in light of the exceptions contained in Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001), -              For many of the documents, third party consultations under Article 4(4) and/or 4(5) of Regulation 1049/2001, -              Final  assessment of the documents in light of the comments received, -              Redaction of those parts of the documents to which one or several exceptions apply, -              Preparation and finalisation of the reply for the requests, -              Preparation of the replies and the documents for dispatch. It follows from the above that the work needed for the treatment of your requests constitutes a severe administrative burden. Furthermore, due to the wide temporal and material scope of the requests, the work cannot be expected to be completed within the time limits set out in Article 7 of Regulation 1049/2001. Article 6(3) of the Regulation 1049/2001 provides that, in the event of an application relating to very large number of documents, the institution concerned may confer with the applicant informally with a view to finding a fair solution. In accordance with the case law of the Union Courts, the proposal for a fair solution aims to balance the interest of the applicant against the workload resulting from the processing of the application in order to safeguard the interests of good administration (Judgments of 6 December 2001, Council v Hautala, Case C 353/99 P, EU:C:2001: 661, para. 30, and of 2 October 2014, Strack v Commission, Case C 127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, para.27). Such solution can only concern the content or the number of documents applied for, not the deadline for replying (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014 in case C- 127/13, Guido Strack v Commission, paragraphs 26-28). This means that the scope of the request must be reduced in a way that would enable its treatment within the extended deadline of 15 + 15 working days. Based on the above-mentioned provision, we kindly ask you to specify the objective of your requests, your specific interest in the requested documents (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014 in case C-127/13, Guido Strack v Commission, paragraph 28; Judgment of the General Court (then 'Court of First Instance') of 22 May 2012 in case T-344/08, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission, paragraph 105 ) and to narrow down the scope of your requests, so as to reduce it to a more manageable amount of documents. According to our first estimates and taking into account the other access to documents requests being handled within DG CONNECT at the same time (including for example, handling another request lodged by you – GestDem 2019/4113), the overall workload of the concerned staff during the same period, the human resources available, the need to safeguard good administration, we propose that you specify two meetings from the transparency lists (links to meetings of  [the Director-General](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=aae7124c-b839-4139-9ffe-ad5660fe9404), [Commissioner Gabriel](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=29935dac-3440-471f-b08e-c8fedd813724) and  her [Cabinet](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=9cf470f6-b423-4424-954b-839539dbf681)) for each of the requests: - GestDem 2019/3996 (Google); - GestDem 2019/3998 (Facebook); - GestDem 2019/4169 (Apple); - GestDem 2019/4293 (Microsoft); - GestDem 2019/4295 (Amazon). In addition, we consider that a limitation concerning the categories of documents is necessary. We consider that within the given timeframe we could identify and assess the release of briefings, documents presented at the meeting and meetings’ minutes. In case you are not able to specify the meetings, we propose as a fair solution limiting the requests to the documents related to two of the most recent meetings listed in the websites above mentioned which relate to meetings held by DG-CONNECT’s Director-General, Commissioner Gabriel and members of her Cabinet. We also propose to limit your requests to the following categories of documents: briefings, documents presented at the meetings, and minutes. In order to enable us to respect the time limits of Regulation 1049/2001, we would ask you for a swift response to our proposal for a fair solution, and within three working days at the latest. Please send your response by email to the following address: [<<E-Mail-Adresse>>](mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>) In the absence of a reply within three working days, we will unilaterally restrict the scope of your applications to those parts that can be dealt with within the extended deadline of 30 working days counting from the date of registration of your applications. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Access to Documents Team []() European Commission DG Connect – ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS BU25 – Avenue de Beaulieu 25 B-1160 Brussels/Belgium

[Ares(2019)5044607 - Your applications for access to documents Ref. GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4169, 2019/4293, 2019/4295](https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/documentInfoDetails.do?documentId=080166e5c653545e) * Sent by ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. All responses have to be sent to this email address. Envoyé par ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. Toutes les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique. * Dear Mr Fanta, We refer to your e-mails, dated 9, 17 and 19 July 2019 in which you make five requests for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (hereinafter ‘Regulation 1049/2001’), registered under the above-mentioned reference numbers. In all the applications, you made the following request: ‘- List of lobby meetings your Directorate-General held with [Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon, respectively] or its intermediaries. The list should include: date, individuals attending and organisational affiliation, the issues discussed, - Minutes and other reports of these meetings - All correspondence including attachments (i.e. any emails, correspondence or telephone call notes) between your DG (including the Commissioner and the Cabinet) and [the respective company] or any intermediaries representing its interests. - All documents prepared for the meetings and exchanged in the course of the meetings between both parties.’ In your response of 24 July 2019 to our clarification request dated 23 July 2019 (our reference, Ares(2019)4794571), you explained that the timeframe of the requests should be ‘the tenure of the Juncker Commission’. Regarding the term ‘intermediaries’ you mentioned that it should encompass ‘employees of the companies as well as other interceding explicitly on their behalf, including industry or trade organizations’. Finally, you mentioned you wanted documents related to ‘meetings of the Director-General and the cabinet’ and ‘with officials such as head of units or above.’ Each of these requests is already very wide in scope as it covers a very high number of meetings of a large group of persons and/or entities. In addition, taking into consideration the circumstances of the introduction, the timing, the scope, as well as the wording of these requests, the seemingly separate requests add up to an even wider scope. In this respect, the Court of First instance (now ‘General Court’) confirmed in its Ryanair judgment (Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2010, Ryanair v Commission, T- 494/08, EU:T:2010:511, paragraph 34) that Article 6(3) may not be evaded by splitting an application into several, seemingly separate, parts. As stated by the EU Courts, the European Commission needs to respect the principle of proportionality and ensure that the interest of the applicant for access is balanced against the workload resulting from the processing of the application for access in order to safeguard the interests of good administration. Due to the scope of your requests, the work needed to deal with your application would entail multiple searches for documents, which involve the entire DG CONNECT and Cabinet covering the following steps: -              Multiple searches for the identification of the documents related to the meetings, -              Retrieval and establishment of a complete list of the documents falling under the scope of your requests, -              Scanning of the documents which are not in pdf format, -              Preliminary individual assessment of the content of the documents in light of the exceptions contained in Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001), -              For many of the documents, third party consultations under Article 4(4) and/or 4(5) of Regulation 1049/2001, -              Final  assessment of the documents in light of the comments received, -              Redaction of those parts of the documents to which one or several exceptions apply, -              Preparation and finalisation of the reply for the requests, -              Preparation of the replies and the documents for dispatch. It follows from the above that the work needed for the treatment of your requests constitutes a severe administrative burden. Furthermore, due to the wide temporal and material scope of the requests, the work cannot be expected to be completed within the time limits set out in Article 7 of Regulation 1049/2001. Article 6(3) of the Regulation 1049/2001 provides that, in the event of an application relating to very large number of documents, the institution concerned may confer with the applicant informally with a view to finding a fair solution. In accordance with the case law of the Union Courts, the proposal for a fair solution aims to balance the interest of the applicant against the workload resulting from the processing of the application in order to safeguard the interests of good administration (Judgments of 6 December 2001, Council v Hautala, Case C 353/99 P, EU:C:2001: 661, para. 30, and of 2 October 2014, Strack v Commission, Case C 127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, para.27). Such solution can only concern the content or the number of documents applied for, not the deadline for replying (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014 in case C- 127/13, Guido Strack v Commission, paragraphs 26-28). This means that the scope of the request must be reduced in a way that would enable its treatment within the extended deadline of 15 + 15 working days. Based on the above-mentioned provision, we kindly ask you to specify the objective of your requests, your specific interest in the requested documents (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2014 in case C-127/13, Guido Strack v Commission, paragraph 28; Judgment of the General Court (then 'Court of First Instance') of 22 May 2012 in case T-344/08, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission, paragraph 105 ) and to narrow down the scope of your requests, so as to reduce it to a more manageable amount of documents. According to our first estimates and taking into account the other access to documents requests being handled within DG CONNECT at the same time (including for example, handling another request lodged by you – GestDem 2019/4113), the overall workload of the concerned staff during the same period, the human resources available, the need to safeguard good administration, we propose that you specify two meetings from the transparency lists (links to meetings of  [the Director-General](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=aae7124c-b839-4139-9ffe-ad5660fe9404), [Commissioner Gabriel](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=29935dac-3440-471f-b08e-c8fedd813724) and  her [Cabinet](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=9cf470f6-b423-4424-954b-839539dbf681)) for each of the requests: - GestDem 2019/3996 (Google); - GestDem 2019/3998 (Facebook); - GestDem 2019/4169 (Apple); - GestDem 2019/4293 (Microsoft); - GestDem 2019/4295 (Amazon). In addition, we consider that a limitation concerning the categories of documents is necessary. We consider that within the given timeframe we could identify and assess the release of briefings, documents presented at the meeting and meetings’ minutes. In case you are not able to specify the meetings, we propose as a fair solution limiting the requests to the documents related to two of the most recent meetings listed in the websites above mentioned which relate to meetings held by DG-CONNECT’s Director-General, Commissioner Gabriel and members of her Cabinet. We also propose to limit your requests to the following categories of documents: briefings, documents presented at the meetings, and minutes. In order to enable us to respect the time limits of Regulation 1049/2001, we would ask you for a swift response to our proposal for a fair solution, and within three working days at the latest. Please send your response by email to the following address: [<<E-Mail-Adresse>>](mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>) In the absence of a reply within three working days, we will unilaterally restrict the scope of your applications to those parts that can be dealt with within the extended deadline of 30 working days counting from the date of registration of your applications. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Access to Documents Team []() European Commission DG Connect – ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS BU25 – Avenue de Beaulieu 25 B-1160 Brussels/Belgium

[Ares(2019)5230691 - Holding reply - Your application for access to documents - Ref. GestDem 2019/4295](https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/documentInfoDetails.do?documentId=080166e5c6a0790a) * Sent by ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. All responses have to be sent to this email address. Envoyé par ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. Toutes les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique. * Dear Mr. Fanta, We refer to your access to documents request dated 19/07/2019 and registered on 23/07/2019 under the above mentioned reference number. Your application is currently being handled. However, we will not be in a position to complete the handling of your application within the time limit of 15 working days, which expires today. An extended time limit is needed given that your application concerns a large number of documents which are held by different Services which must be consulted. Therefore, we have to extend the time limit with 15 working days in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents. The new time limit expires on 04/09/2019. We apologise for this delay and for any inconvenience this may cause. Yours faithfully, Access to Documents Team European Commission DG Connect – ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS B-1160 Brussels/Belgium

[Ares(2019)5564465 - Your applications for access to documents - Ref. GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4293 and 2019/4295](https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/documentInfoDetails.do?documentId=080166e5c723278e) * Sent by ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. All responses have to be sent to this email address. Envoyé par ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. Toutes les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique. * Dear Mr Fanta, We refer to your e-mails dated 09 July 2019 and 19 July 2019 in which you make four requests for access to documents, registered under the above mentioned reference numbers. Unfortunately, we are not able to send the reply to your applications within the given time limits, which expire today and tomorrow. You will receive the answer to your applications as soon as possible. We apologize for this delay and for any inconvenience this may cause. Yours faithfully, **Access to Documents Team** European Commission DG Connect – ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS BU25 – Avenue de Beaulieu 25 B-1160 Brussels/Belgium

[Ares(2019)5564465 - Your applications for access to documents - Ref. GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4293 and 2019/4295](https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/documentInfoDetails.do?documentId=080166e5c723278e) * Sent by ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. All responses have to be sent to this email address. Envoyé par ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. Toutes les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique. * Dear Mr Fanta, We refer to your e-mails dated 09 July 2019 and 19 July 2019 in which you make four requests for access to documents, registered under the above mentioned reference numbers. Unfortunately, we are not able to send the reply to your applications within the given time limits, which expire today and tomorrow. You will receive the answer to your applications as soon as possible. We apologize for this delay and for any inconvenience this may cause. Yours faithfully, **Access to Documents Team** European Commission DG Connect – ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS BU25 – Avenue de Beaulieu 25 B-1160 Brussels/Belgium

[Ares(2019)5564465 - Your applications for access to documents - Ref. GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4293 and 2019/4295](https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/documentInfoDetails.do?documentId=080166e5c723278e) * Sent by ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. All responses have to be sent to this email address. Envoyé par ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. Toutes les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique. * Dear Mr Fanta, We refer to your e-mails dated 09 July 2019 and 19 July 2019 in which you make four requests for access to documents, registered under the above mentioned reference numbers. Unfortunately, we are not able to send the reply to your applications within the given time limits, which expire today and tomorrow. You will receive the answer to your applications as soon as possible. We apologize for this delay and for any inconvenience this may cause. Yours faithfully, **Access to Documents Team** European Commission DG Connect – ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS BU25 – Avenue de Beaulieu 25 B-1160 Brussels/Belgium

[Ares(2019)5564465 - Your applications for access to documents - Ref. GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4293 and 2019/4295](https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/documentInfoDetails.do?documentId=080166e5c723278e) * Sent by ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. All responses have to be sent to this email address. Envoyé par ve_cnect.public_access_to_documents (CNECT) <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>>. Toutes les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique. * Dear Mr Fanta, We refer to your e-mails dated 09 July 2019 and 19 July 2019 in which you make four requests for access to documents, registered under the above mentioned reference numbers. Unfortunately, we are not able to send the reply to your applications within the given time limits, which expire today and tomorrow. You will receive the answer to your applications as soon as possible. We apologize for this delay and for any inconvenience this may cause. Yours faithfully, **Access to Documents Team** European Commission DG Connect – ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS BU25 – Avenue de Beaulieu 25 B-1160 Brussels/Belgium

Advance copy by e-mail and registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt Dear Mr Fanta, Please find attached document Ares(2019)5901415 regarding "Your application for access to documents – GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4169, 2019/4293, 2019/4295" sent by Mr Roberto Viola, General Director of DG CONNECT on 23/09/2019. Best regards,

Advance copy by e-mail and registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt Dear Mr Fanta, Please find attached document Ares(2019)5901415 regarding "Your application for access to documents – GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4169, 2019/4293, 2019/4295" sent by Mr Roberto Viola, General Director of DG CONNECT on 23/09/2019. Best regards,

Advance copy by e-mail and registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt Dear Mr Fanta, Please find attached document Ares(2019)5901415 regarding "Your application for access to documents – GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4169, 2019/4293, 2019/4295" sent by Mr Roberto Viola, General Director of DG CONNECT on 23/09/2019. Best regards,

Advance copy by e-mail and registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt Dear Mr Fanta, Please find attached document Ares(2019)5901415 regarding "Your application for access to documents – GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4169, 2019/4293, 2019/4295" sent by Mr Roberto Viola, General Director of DG CONNECT on 23/09/2019. Best regards,

Advance copy by e-mail and registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt Dear Mr Fanta, Please find attached document Ares(2019)5901415 regarding "Your application for access to documents – GestDem 2019/3996, 2019/3998, 2019/4169, 2019/4293, 2019/4295" sent by Mr Roberto Viola, General Director of DG CONNECT on 23/09/2019. Best regards,