T-903/16:
“32. At the outset, it should be recalled that Regulation No 1049/2001 and Regulation No 45/2001 have different objectives. The first is designed to ensure the greatest possible transparency in the decision-making process of the public authorities and the information on which they base their decisions. It is thus designed to facilitate as far as possible the exercise of the right of access to documents and to promote good administrative practices. The second is designed to ensure the protection of the freedoms and fundamental rights of individuals, particularly their private life, in the handling of personal data (judgment of 29 June 2010, Commission v Bavarian Lager, C 28/08 P, EU:C:2010:378, paragraph 49). It follows that, unlike Regulation No 1049/2001, Regulation No 45/2001 is not designed to facilitate the exercise of the right of access to documents (see, to that effect, the judgment of 17 July 2014, YS and Others, C 141/12 and C 372/12, EU:C:2014:2081, paragraph 47).
33. In that context, the rights of access laid down by those two regulations respectively have neither the same purpose nor the same beneficiaries. Article 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001 seeks to enable the public, namely any citizen and any natural or legal person, to access documents held by the institutions. Article 13 of Regulation 45/2001 seeks to enable access only by data subjects, to their personal data, namely information about them as an identified or identifiable person, without providing that those persons may, on that basis, also have access to documents containing those data. In that regard, it must be noted that Article 13(c) of Regulation No 45/2001 provides only that the data subject has the right to obtain ‘communication in an intelligible form of the data undergoing processing’
"I say I know one thing: that I know nothing.
That, indeed makes me more knowledgeable than anybody else"
- Socrates -
Relationship between Regulation No 1049/2001 and Regulation No 45/2001
Pappas & Associates
- Pappas & Associates, Rue Stevin 49-51, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
- contact@pappaslaw.eu
- +32-2-231 57 04
- +32-2-231 57 08
Recent cases
European Court of Human Rights : ECHR 46862/14, ECHR 46819/14, ECHR 30287/14, ECHR 23544/14, ECHR 5485/14, ECHR76530/13, ECHR 68918/13, ECHR 59003/13, ECHR 57424/13, ECHR 39173/13, ECHR 39165/13, ECHR 32194/13, ECHR 23542/13, ECHR 53601/12, ECHR 48499/12, ECHR 18096/12, CHR 1317/07, ECHR 3735/06
European Commission (Competition) : C 2015/078217, C 2015/071997, SA.39119 (2014-CP), SA. 32060 (2014/NN), SA 35191 (20121CP), C(2011)3504, C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09), COMP/B1-39826/2010
Conseil d’Etat and Symvoulio tis Epikrateias : ΣτΕ 469/2012, Conseil d’Etat, arrêt nº 221.250 du 30 octobre 2012, ΣτΕ (ΕΑ) 259/2012, ΣτΕ (ΕΑ) 256-257/2012, ΣτΕ (ΕΑ) 254/2012, Conseil d’Etat arrêt nº 211.866 du 9 mars 2011, ΣτΕ 1786/2010
Court of Justice of the European Union : C-131/15 P, T-484/15, T-351/15, T-306/15, T-104/15, F-68/15, Τ-791/14, T-787/14 P, F-93/14, F-77/14, F-69/14, F-35/14, F-34/14, C-673/13 P, T-653/13, T-338/13, T-73/13, T-58/13, T-57/13, T-44/13, T-29/13, F-117/13, T-403/12, T-296/12, -192/12, T-36/12, T-14/12, F-137-138-139/12, F-26/12, T-635/11, T-422/11, T-419/11, T-317/11 P, T-59/11, F-124/11, F-87/11, F-24/10 RA, C-362/09 P, T-164/09, T-384/08, T-43/07 P, F-143/07, F-128-129/07, C-521/06 P, T-94/05 RENV II, T-94/05, F-100/05, T-471/04
T-358/20, Net Technologies Finland Oy v. REA: Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) – The FP7 Guide is not a source of the applicable law but merely a policy instrument, which, in accordance with the principle of performing contracts in good faith, has to be taken into account – Relationship between the participants in a Consortium – Probative value of emails – Eligibility of the costs for the consultants of the subcontractor; criteria of working in the beneficiary’s premises and of remuneration based on working hours; derogation by FP7 from the conditions laid down in the general conditions of the FP
Staff Regulations: the rule of correspondence between the complaint and the application
AMD Fusion APU Era Begins
The Reform of the data protection legal framework
The Netherlands Dances the Two-Step With Its New Telecom Law : Net-Neutrality and Online Advertisers Learn the Steps
Second Assessment of the Implementation of the Safer Networking Principles
Education and Employment Under the Europe 2020 Strategy
Google and the credibility of EU data protection laws
Is Microsoft ruling an example of European protectionism ?
A law with unintended consequences