Um schneller auf Ihre Anfrage zu antworten, wurde diese E-Mail in englischer Sprache verfasst. Bitte teilen Sie uns mit, ob Sie eine Übersetzung ins Deutsche benötigen. Diese stellen wir Ihnen dann gerne zur Verfügung.
Our reference: A(2019)9163
Dear Mr
Antragsteller/in,
Further to your application seeking public access to documents related to a tweet posted on the 17th of July 2019 at Twitter's German account of the European Parliament on the election of Ms Ursula von der Leyen as new Commission's President, Parliament informs you that the following documents have been identified as falling within the scope of your application.
As far as the internal communication concerning the video in the tweet, Parliament has identified several emails:
- Exchange of emails of 16 July concerning the first draft of the script for the video.
- Email of 16 July (time 20:08) with the final text of the script for the video.
Names have been redacted in order to preserve the protection of personal data. You can find the emails attached herewith.
Moreover, Parliament informs you that the author of the video is the consortium that won lot 2 ("Editorial and creative strategy services and content production - news") of the tender procedure for European Parliament Web video and other multimedia services with reference number: COMM/DG/AWD/2015/732. The winner of lot 2 was the consortium Publicis Group (Publicis, AFP Services, Relaxnews, DigitasLBi). You can find more information, in particular on the budget, on the contract award notice published in the supplement to the Official Journal of the EU - TED (Tenders Electronic Daily) website:
https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:281958-2016:TEXT:EN:HTML
Parliament also informs you that within the framework of the above-mentioned contract, specific products are gradually ordered in accordance with the priorities dictated by the parliamentary activity:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/priorities
On the question of the money spent on promoting the video, we inform you that the relevant service within Parliament has dedicated a part of its budget for paid promotions of materials on social media. Every paid promotion is carried out following a decision by the editorial committee. No specific document has been identified that contains the information you request.
Finally, no specific document has been identified either that contains the information for twitter analytics that you request.
In this context Parliament would like to point out, as a first consideration, that the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as defined in its Article 2(3), extends only to documents held by an institution, and it does not cover the broader concept of information.
Indeed, according to well-established case law, it is necessary to maintain a distinction between the concept of a document and that of information, for the purposes of applying Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Information may be distinguished from a document, in particular, as far as it is defined as a data element that may appear in one or more documents. In that respect, since none of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 deals with the right of access to information as such, it cannot be inferred that the public's right of access to an institution document implies a duty on the part of the institution to reply to any request for information from an individual (Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 in case T-214/13, Typke v Commission, paragraphs 53 and 54).
In addition, the Court considers that the right of access to documents held by the institutions within the meaning of Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 applies only to existing documents in the possession of the institution concerned. Therefore, an application for access to documents that would require the institution to create a new document, even if that document were based on information already appearing in existing documents held by it, does not fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (Judgment of the Court of 11 January 2017 in case C-491/15 P, Typke v Commission, paragraph 31). This conclusion is implicitly confirmed by Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, stating that documents to which access is granted have to be supplied in an existing version and format.
On this basis, Parliament considers your application as handled and the file closed. Should you have any new requests for specific Parliament documents, please do not hesitate to come back to us.
Kind regards,