0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
102 vues3 pages
EU Commission denied application GESTDEM 2011/2275 for access to documents under regulation 1049/2001 relating to case COMP/C-3/39.806 - Apple iPhone OS, Adobe Flash and Adobe AIR.
EU Commission denied application GESTDEM 2011/2275 for access to documents under regulation 1049/2001 relating to case COMP/C-3/39.806 - Apple iPhone OS, Adobe Flash and Adobe AIR.
Droits d'auteur :
Public Domain
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
EU Commission denied application GESTDEM 2011/2275 for access to documents under regulation 1049/2001 relating to case COMP/C-3/39.806 - Apple iPhone OS, Adobe Flash and Adobe AIR.
Droits d'auteur :
Public Domain
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
a, EUROPEAN COMMISSION
3%, | Dimctr General
| = 4
tee Competition DG
17 -06- 2011
Brussels,
‘COMP/C:3/PS/ac/Bundle 2011/063043
To: Mr Stephane Belad:
E-Mail: adobeflexengineer@gmail.com
Subject: Application for access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001
GESTDEM 2011/2275 relating to case COMP/C-3/39.806 ~ Apple
iPhone OS
Dear Mr Beladaci,
Thank you for your e-mail dated 28 April 2011 (registered 2 May 2011 as GESTDEM
No. 2011/2275) and for your subsequent clarification by e-mail, received on 19 May
2011, by which you requested access to documents under Regulation No 1049/2001
regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents
(“Regulation 1049/2001”).
1, DOCUMENTS CONCERNED
Your application requested all documents related to case COMP/C-3/39,806. The
documents contained in the case file contain intemal Commission communications as well
as correspondence with external legal entities. Having carefully examined all documents in
the case file in the light of Regulation 1049/2001, I have come to the conclusion that all
the documents that you request access to fall under the exceptions of Article 4 of that
Regulation. I therefore regret to inform you that access to these documents must be
refused
2, EXCEPTION COVERING THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED: ARTICLE 4(3), PROTECTION
OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
Pursuant to the second sub-paragraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, access to
internal Commission documents containing preliminary consultations within the institution
may be refused if disclosure would scriously undermine the institution's decision-making
process. Internal documents on file make note of preliminary deliberations and intemal
discussions within the Commission. The capacity of the Commission's services to express
their views freely would be compromised if, when drafting such internal documents, they
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, OJ L145,
31.05.2001, page 43,
‘Commission européenne, 8-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (92-2) 290 11 11
(Office: 5-70 6/117. Telephone: direct in (32-2) 2065040. Fax. (32-2) 2960128.would have to be mindful of the possibility that their critical opinions and suggestions could
be disclosed to the general public. ‘This could lead the Commission's services to practice
"self-censorship". Consequently the disclosure of such documents would call into question
the autonomy of the intemal decision-making process and thereby undermine it. I must
therefore decline your request for these documents.
3. EXCEPTION COVERING THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED: ARTICLE 4(2), FIRST
INDENT, PROTECTION OF COMMERCIAL INTERESTS
Pursuant to Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation 1049/2001, the Commission shall refuse
access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial
interests of a natural or a legal person, ‘The commercial interest exception in this Article
embodies the Commission's confidentiality obligation under Article 339 TFEU, meaning
that the Commission must take all necessary precautions to ensure that the protection of
information about undertakings covered by professional secrecy is not undermined. In its
judgment in the Bank Austria’ case, the Court defined the notion of “professional secrecy"
as information "known only to a limited number of persons and whose disclosure is liable
fo cause serious harm to the person who has provided it or to third parties". ‘The Court
further stated that "the assessment as to the confidentiality of a piece of information thus
requires the legitimate interests opposing disclosure of the information to be weighed
against the public interest that the activities of the Community institutions take place as
openly as possible".
‘The requested documents - none of which are in the public domain - contain commercial
and market-sensitive information with regard to the activities of the undertakings involved,
the public disclosure of which would undermine the protection of their commercial
interests. You will understand that I cannot be more specific as to the content of these
documents as this would have the effect of partly revealing their content and thereby
depriving the exception of its purpose.
In accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation 1049/2001 and with a view to assessing
whether the exceptions in Article 4(1) or 4(2) apply, the Commission has consulted the
relevant third parties. All parties concemed oppose the disclosure of any of their
correspondence in the file on the basis of either the first, second or third indents of Article
4(2). I therefore regret to inform you that access to these documents must also be refused.
4, OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to Articles 4(2) and 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, the exception to the right of
access can be waived if there is an overriding public interest in disclosing the documents
requested. The Commission has not identified such an overriding public interest nor is
such a case made in your application. Consequently, the prevailing interest in this case
lies in protecting both the Commission’s decision-making process and the commercial
interests of the parties involved.
? Case T-403/05 MyTravel Group v Commission [2008] BCR-2007, paragraphs 50-52,
> Case T-198/03, Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG v. Commission, [2006] ECR II-1429, para. 71
25. PARTIAL ACCESS
Thave also considered granting partial access to the documents concerned in accordance
with Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001. However, since all parts of these documents
are covered by the invoked exception, no such access can be granted.
6, MEANS OF REDRESS
If you would like this position to be reviewed, you should write to the Commission's
Secretary-General at the address below. You have 15 working days within which to do
so from receipt of this letter, after which your initial request will be deemed to have been
withdrawn,
The Sceretary-General will inform you of the result of the review within 15 working days
from the registration of your request and shall either grant you access to the documents or
confirm the refusal. In the case of the latter, you will be informed of which further options
are open to you.
Supplementary correspondence should be sent to the following address:
‘The Secretary-General
‘European Commission
B-1049 BRUSSELS
Yours sincerely,
aes
Alexander ITALIANER