Auf Mastodon teilen

<< Adresse entfernt >> Anfragenr: 286846 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/286846/ Postanschrift << Adresse entfernt >> Gabrielle Jeliazkov << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >>

-----Original Message----- From: << Adresse entfernt >> [#286846] <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Sent: 24 August 2023 17:22 To: EEAS ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Subject: Request for documents related to research and communication on South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership [#286846] Dear Sir or Madam, Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, and Regulation 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information in Environmental Matters, I am requesting documents containing the following information: For the US$8.5 billion Just Energy Transition Partnership with South Africa, of which the European Union has committed US$35 million in grant facilities and US$1 billion in two loans of US$500 million each through the European Investment Bank: - Any and all documents referencing any research undertaken by the European Commission or on it’s behalf underpinning claims made in the following press statements surrounding social and economic outcomes or emissions reductions: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/it/ip_21_5768 and https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_22_6664. - Any and all communication between the European Commission and South African government officials, whether directly or through a different state actor, between 01 July 2021 and 07 November 2022 which references the structure, aims, objectives or outline of the Just Energy Transition Partnership. Documents may include but are not limited to proposed or confirmed agreements, contracts, meeting minutes, memos, presentations, research and correspondence including emails, attachments, proprietary documents for meetings, briefings, and studies. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any doubts or questions in regards to this request. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, << Adresse entfernt >> Anfragenr: 286846 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/286846/ Postanschrift << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> -- Rechtshinweis: Diese E-Mail wurde über den Webservice fragdenstaat.de versendet. Antworten werden ggf. im Auftrag

-- Rechtshinweis: Diese E-Mail wurde über den Webservice fragdenstaat.de versendet. Antworten werden ggf. im Auftrag der Antragstellenden auf dem Internet-Portal veröffentlicht. Falls Sie Fragen dazu haben oder eine Idee, was für eine Anfrage bei Ihnen im Haus notwendig wäre, besuchen Sie: https://fragdenstaat.de/fuer-behoerden/

-----Original Message----- From: << Adresse entfernt >> [#286846] <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Sent: 05 October 2023 11:26 To: EEAS ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Subject: Re: Confirmatory application in response to documents request - 2023/122 [#286846] Dear Sir or Madam, I am filing this confirmatory application in relation to my access to documents request ‘Request for documents related to research and communication on South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership' (EEAS Ref: 2023/122). Please pass this on to the relevant person reviewing confirmatory applications. On 25 August 2023 I submitted an access to documents request for: ‘Any and all documents referencing any research undertaken by the European Commission or on it’s behalf underpinning claims made in the following press statements surrounding social and economic outcomes or emissions reductions: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/it/ip_21_5768 , and https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_22_6664.’ And ‘Any and all communication between the European Commission and South African government officials, whether directly or through a different state actor, between 01 July 2021 and 07 November 2022 which references the structure, aims, objectives or outline of the Just Energy Transition Partnership.’ My initial request as well as all subsequent correspondence can be found here: https://fragdenstaat.de/en/request/request-for-documents-related-to-research-and-communication-on-south-africa-s-just-energy-transition-partnership/. On 15 September 2023, EEAS responded to my request refusing access to five of the nine documents identified, namely: - Email from the UK to the International Partners Group dated 11 April 2022, with attached letter from South Africa’s Presidential Climate Finance Task Team to the UK, 8 April 2022 (document 4); - Email from the UK to the International Partners Group dated 11 March 2022, with attached letter from the UK to South Africa’s Presidential Climate Finance Task Team, 11 March 2022 (document 5); - Email from the UK to the International Partners Group with attached letter from South Africa’s Presidential Climate Finance Task Team to the UK, 14 February 2022 (document 6); - Email from the UK to the International Partners Group dated 01 July 2022, with attached letter from COP President to the Presidency of the Republic of South Africa dated 27 June 2022 (document 7); - Email from the UK to the International Partners Group dated 9 June 2022 (document 8) EEAS refused access to these documents on the basis of Article 4(1)(a), third indent and Article 4(3), first subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001. To this extent, I hereby argue: 1. EEAS’ application of Article 4(1)(a), third indent is insufficiently particularised and inconsistent with case law and Article 4(4) of the Aarhus Convention. In its response letter, EEAS alleges that the documents requested “contain internal opinions, assessments and scenarios for negotiations with South Africa that are part of deliberations and consultations within EEAS and between the EEAS and the International Partners Group as well as the International Partners Group and South Africa. Moreover, they include negotiation positions of South Africa. The disclosure of these documents by the EU would therefore harm the mutual trust and confidence with South Africa as well as other international partners involved, and therefore prejudice the public interest as regards international relations as per Article 4(1)(a), third indent of the Regulation.” EEAS’ reliance upon the alleged risk posed to international relations as a result of disclosure of documents relating to “deliberations and consultations” and “negotiation positions” is ill-founded. First, EEAS uses the terms ‘deliberations and consultations’ and ‘negotiation positions’ vaguely, without specifying the nature of the positions to which it refers. EEAS fails to adequately explain what about the deliberations or negotiation positions would harm the mutual trust and confidence with South Africa and other international partners. It merely makes an assertion to that effect. Second, EEAS is required, in accordance with the established case law of the CJEU, to explain how the purported risk to international relations is “forseeable and not purely hypothetical”. It has failed even to particularise the nature of the purported risk, much less to establish that it reaches the threshold of “foreseeable and not purely hypothetical”. Furthermore, Article 4(4), subparagraph 10 of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Environmental Matters and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 1998 states that, ‘The aforementioned grounds for refusal shall be interpreted in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure and taking into account whether the information requested relates to emissions into the environment.’ While EEAS may feel that the disclosure of documents will prejudice the public interest as regards to international relations, in actuality - when interpreting the grounds for refusal in a restrictive way - it is in the public’s interest to disclose the aforementioned documents. The Just Energy Transition Partnership with South Africa will determine the direction of South Africa’s energy transition for the coming decades and is directly related to emissions into the environment. As the EEAS has described themselves, the documents cover EEAS’ decision making and negotiating scenarios that directly relate to decisions and funding that will impact global emissions for years to come. It is squarely in the public interest for these documents to be released. Documents 4 - 8 also originate from the United Kingdom, who is a signatory to the Aarhus Convention and so is aware of the possibility that correspondence relating directly to emissions reductions measures and decisions may be requested and released in the name of public interest. 2. EEAS’ application of Article 4 (3) first subparagraph is unlawful and contravenes established EU case law. First, it must be recalled that Article 4 (3) first subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001 states that “Access to a document, drawn up by an institution for internal use or received by an institution, which relates to a matter where the decision has not been taken by the institution, shall be refused if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process”. The documents in dispute do not relate to “a matter where the decision has not been taken”; they are in fact about an agreement, contribution targets and an investment plan that EEAS linked in the same response where they refused the documents in question. They are finalised and publicly available. EEAS argues that, ‘documents 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 also contain internal assessments by the EEAS on possible negotiating scenarios with South Africa that constitute the basis of ongoing and future deliberations within the EEAS. The disclosure of such documents would therefore also prejudice the institution decision-making process.’ In terms of the documents constituting ‘the basis of ongoing and future deliberations within the EEAS’, as previously stated, the description offered by the EEAS is not that of an ongoing decision-making process, but is rather correspondence related to an already made agreement. The fact that in the coming years the internal assessments could be used for ‘future deliberations’ does not qualify as an ongoing decision-making process in the sense of Article 4 (3) first subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001. If this were to be the case, every document related to any EU line of work would immediately be subject to an ongoing decision-making process and fall under the exception laid out in Article 4 (3) of Regulation 1049/2001, since every piece of information contained in a document can eventually trigger a decision at any given moment. This, however, is not the meaning of Article 4 (3) of Regulation 1049/2001, which is rather subject to the principle of widest possible access. To this extent, EEAS’ application of the exception is unlawful, as the documents in dispute relate to a decision-making process that is now final. With regards to the claim that the disclosure of such documents would ‘prejudice the institution decision-making process’, EEAS’ argument once again contravenes EU case law establishing that the risk of disclosure must be “reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical”. When EEAS states that the documents “contain internal assessments by the EEAS on possible negotiating scenarios with South Africa,” there are one of two options: - The scenarios are in reference to negotiating that has led to the agreement already made (see above); or - The EEAS is referencing hypothetical negotiation scenarios that have not come to be. In the case of option 2, the EEAS is by definition presenting a scenario that is vague and hypothetical. EEAS also fails to demonstrate how ‘specifically and actually’ the protected interest would be undermined. 3. EEAS’ failure to provide partial disclosure is unlawful Article 4 (6) of Regulation 1049/2001 states that: “If only parts of the requested document are covered by any of the exceptions, the remaining parts of the document shall be released.” Partial disclosure must therefore be considered, consistent with the provisions and the principle of widest possible access. EEAS argues that ‘We have considered whether partial access could be granted to documents 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. However, since the vast majority of the substantive parts of the documents are covered by the invoked exceptions, granting a partial access, albeit marginal, to the remaining part would entail revealing information the protection of which is covered by the exceptions relied on, as explained above.’ In light of bullet points 1 and 2, and the misapplication of Articles 4(1) and 4(3), a reconsideration of the initial refusal by the EEAS should deliver at the very least partial - if not full - access to documents 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. For these reasons, I consider that EEAS is legally obligated to provide the requested documents. Please do not hesitate to contact me in case you would have any doubts or questions with regards to this confirmatory application. Sincerely, << Adresse entfernt >> Request Number: 286846 Reply To: <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>> Upload large files for this request here: https://fragdenstaat.de/en/request/286846/upload/3f4ba07e164670451ae31d17f036aaa400311b38/ -- Rechtshinweis: Diese E-Mail wurde über den Webservice fragdenstaat.de versendet. Antworten werden ggf. im Auftrag