Ask the EU: SG not in a position to verify whether the statement by DG JUST is correct.
report "Adoption Battle Reached Peak" - 2
Arun Dohle made this access to documents request to Justice and Consumers
The request was refused by Justice and Consumers.
From: Arun Dohle
July 06, 2015
Dear Justice and Consumers,
Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:
- The signed and registered version of the letter to Jurnalul National, as the version you sent was unsigned and unregistered.
- Also please provide the proof that the information provided in that letter was published as your "right to reply'by the Romanian newspaper Jurnalul National.
- If not published, please provide internal and external correspondence, notes, relating to that.
- My attention has been drawn to the fact that that letter was also sent to the participants of the 2009 Strasbourg conference. Please also disclose that.
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/infor...
Yours faithfully,
Arun Dohle
Link to this
Justice and Consumers
July 09, 2015
Dear Mr Dohle,
Thank you for your request dated 06/07/2015. We hereby acknowledge receipt of your request for access to documents which was registered on 08/07/2015 under reference GestDem 2015/3602.
In accordance with Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, your application will be handled within 15 working days. The time limit will expire on 30/07/2015.
In case this time limit needs to be extended, you will be informed in due course.
Yours faithfully,
JUST ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS TEAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
show quoted sections
Link to this
Arun Dohle left an annotation (July 10, 2015) %>
Time Limit 30 July 2015
Link to this
Justice and Consumers
July 29, 2015
Dear Sir
We refer to your e-mail dated 06/07/2014 in which you make a request for access to documents, registered under the Ref GestDem No 2015/3602.
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 on 30/07/2015.
An extended time limit is needed as your application the application concerns documents 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 20/08/2015.
We apologise for this delay and for any inconvenience this may cause.
Yours faithfully,
JUST ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS TEAM
show quoted sections
Link to this
Arun Dohle left an annotation (July 29, 2015) %>
extended time limit 20 August 2015
Link to this
Justice and Consumers
August 10, 2015
Attachment image001.gif
3K Download
Attachment 3515478 Romanian newspaper GESTDEM N 2015 3602 Dohle REV.signed.1.pdf
76K Download View as HTML
Attachment 3515478 annex 1..pdf
160K Download View as HTML
Attachment 3515478 annex 2..pdf
290K Download View as HTML
Attachment 3515478 annex 3..pdf
25K Download View as HTML
N° d'enreg. :
Ares(2015)3330450
Dear Mr Dohle,
Please find attached the advanced copy of the reply to your request of
access to documents registered under GESTDEM 2015/3602.
The reply is signed by our Head of Civil justice policy Unit, Mr Michael
Shotter.
Yours sincerely,
Secretariat
[1]cid:image001.gif@01CE83E0.1EAB2A50
European Commission
Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Civil Justice Policy Unit
References
Visible links
Link to this
From: Arun Dohle
August 19, 2015
Dear Justice and Consumers,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews (Secretariat General).
I am writing to request an internal review of Justice and Consumers's handling of my FOI request 'Information related to alleged falsified report "Adoption Battle Reached Peak" - 2'. (gestdem 2013-3882)
I note that the second request now led to disclosure of some internal emails (Annex 2). Of course, these mails should already have been disclosed during my first request.
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/infor...
However, those emails were from March 2011. So way after the newspaper article and the MEP's Written Questions. It is difficult to believe that this is the only correspondence or that there are no other internal notes related to this newspaper article. Therefore I make a confirmatory appeal and request the General Secretariat to look into this.
Also, I hereby oppose the blackening of the names of civil servants. In particular because one name is not blackened. I cannot escape the feeling that DG JUST is not treating the privacy of all civil servants at an equal manner. Therefore I request public disclosure of those emails without names blackened.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/infor...
Yours faithfully,
Arun Dohle
Link to this
Justice and Consumers
August 27, 2015
Dear Mr Dohle,
Thank you for your email dated 19/08/2015, registered on 27/08/2015. I hereby acknowledge receipt of your confirmatory application for access to documents (ref.: Ares(2015)3537262 – GESTDEM 2015/3602).
In accordance with Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, you will receive a response to your request within 15 working days (17/09/2015).
In case this deadline needs to be extended, you will be informed in due course.
Best regards,
ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS TEAM
European Commission
Secretariat General
Unit SG.B4 – Transparency
show quoted sections
Link to this
Arun Dohle left an annotation (August 27, 2015) %>
Time limit: 17 September 2015
Link to this
From: Arun Dohle
August 28, 2015
Dear General Secretariat,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Justice and Consumers's handling of my FOI request 'Information related to alleged falsified report "Adoption Battle Reached Peak" - 2'.
I hereby hand in an additional question to my confirmatory appeal of 19 August 2015, of which receipt was confirmed on 27 August.
The additional request is: Can the SG verify why Director General Le Bail signed a letter with letterhead of the Romanian Delegation (instead of her own Director General DG JUST letterhead,
and,
last but not least, why this letter was not duly registered.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/infor...
I'd welcome a confirmation of receipt.
Yours faithfully,
Arun Dohle
Link to this
Justice and Consumers
September 17, 2015
Attachment image001.png
4K Download
Attachment Dohle 2015 3602 decision EN LS ok.pdf
182K Download View as HTML
Dear Mr Dohle,
Kindly find the answer to your confirmatory application concerning your
request for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) N° 1049/2001
regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission
documents (Gestdem 2015/3602).
Yours sincerely,
Carlos Remis
SG.B.4
Transparence
Berl. 05/332
Link to this
Justice and Consumers
September 18, 2015
Attachment image001.gif
3K Download
Attachment 3871830 DOHLE Right to reply signed.pdf
56K Download View as HTML
Dear Mr Arun Dohle,
Please find attached the reply to your e-mail of 28 August 2015. The reply
is signed by our Head of Civil justice policy Unit, Mr Michael Shotter.
Yours sincerely,
Secretariat
[1]cid:image001.gif@01CE83E0.1EAB2A50
European Commission
Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Civil Justice Policy Unit
References
Visible links
Link to this
From: Arun Dohle
September 23, 2015
Dear Justice and Consumers,
Please pass this on to the person in the General Secretariat who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Justice and Consumers's handling of my FOI request 'Information related to alleged falsified report "Adoption Battle Reached Peak" - 2'.
GESTDEM No 2015/3602
On 17 September 2015 I received a reply of the Secretary general mr. Alexander Italianer, in which it was acknowledged that the name of Mrs. Roelie Post, seconded by the European Commission to Against Child trafficking, should have been redacted.
I was informed that this was a clerical error. I hereby inform you that such “clerical error” was made repeatedly by the Commission’s Services in other requests for access to documents. I will ask the European Ombudsman’s opinion about what exactly constitutes a clerical error.
Furthermore, in the letter of 17 September, I was informed that the separate message to DG JUST with a series of additional questions relating to the initial reply of DG JUST provided on 10 August 2015, were not directly related to the substance of the prior confirmatory application. Hence that request would be addressed by DG JUST in a separate reply.
On 18 September 2015 I indeed received such reply. However, I do not consider that reply satisfactory for the below reasons.
The additional request was:
“Can the SG verify why Director General Le Bail signed a letter with letterhead of the Romanian Delegation (instead of her own Director General DG JUST letterhead”
"and why was it not registered"
According to DG JUST the non-registration was, again, a clerical error.
I hereby request the General Secretariat to verify if it is technical possible to not at all register a letter that needs to be signed by a Director-General, especially if the letter is not on her own letterhead, and was sent of by the Representation in Bucharest.
Should such a letter be just registered by the Representation in Bucharest, or also by the services of DG JUST in Brussels – as the Director General signed the letter. And, how to file a letter that was not registered? Seems to me, in a modern digital bureaucracy, not so easy.
That the letter was sent for linguistic reasons by the Representation in Bucharest seems odd. Director General Le Bail could have signed a letter in Romanian using her own letterhead.
The reasoning of geographical proximity seems also flawed, as from the correspondence it appears there was no follow-up to ensure publication of the “right to reply”. Geographical proximity may made sense if the letter would have been signed by the EU Representative in Bucharest.
The letter signed by Ms. Le Bail holds another problem. It was definitely not the case that the Strasbourg conference was open to all interested parties. In fact, the organisations Against Child Trafficking and United Adoptees International could only participate due to the direct intervention of the Secretary General at the time, Mrs. Catherine Day.
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/409/r...
The Romanian newspaper Jurnalul National also reported on the way that conference was organised in 2009, its aim and participants:
Orfanii români, preg?ti?i de export în UE
http://jurnalul.ro/stire-special/orfanii...
Romanian Orphans, ready for export to the EU
http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/40194
“ADOPTION MAFIA WORKS THROUGH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The European Commission and the Council of Europe have prepared the international conference "Challenges of the procedures for adoption in Europe", which originally was to be held on 26 and 27 November in Strasbourg. Beyond discussions of principle, the ultimate aim of the conference is to develop a joint recommendation that Romania should follow the Bulgarian model, which is to reopen international adoptions. Those of the European Commission and NGOs who oppose this idea immediately came into conflict with the organizers.
The website announcing the conference and where one could register was suspended and amended several times, and those interested to participate could not register. Subsequently, only NGOs approved by the organizers were informed by e-mail, and not at the official site of the conference, that the dates had changed and the conference would be held between November 30 and December 1. The worst thing is that the team of the European Commission in charge of organising the conference is not legally allowed to do so.
Specifically, the Directorate General for Justice, Freedom and Security of the European Commission, the unit E2 - Civil Justice, headed by the Finnish Salla Saastamoinen organises the conference. The coordinator of the organisational team is the Italian Patrizia De Luca, working in that directorate. According to the organigram of the European Commission, the Rights of the Child are part of the D1 of Directorate D of the European Commission, led by the Romanian Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea. Sources in the EC Directorate D told National Journal that this structure has no involvement in organising the conference in Strasbourg, although it is the only unit that has competence in children's rights in the European Commission.
The same source says that Directorate E2 violates the official regulations of the EU, more precisely the European Union anti-corruption policy, which states that a Directorate can not organise actions on issues that do not fall within their powers, conform the Communication on Anti-Corruption Policy, number 317 of 2003, addressed to the European Council and the European Parliament.”
Considering the above, I would like the General Secretariat to verify the correctness of the statement that the non registration of the letter signed by Director General Le Bail was a “clerical mistake”.
As well as the correctness of DG Le Bail signing a letter, not using her own Letterhead.
Looking forward to your analysis.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/infor...
Yours faithfully,
Arun Dohle
Link to this
Justice and Consumers
September 28, 2015
Attachment ATT93619 1.jpg
1K Download
Dear Mr Dohle,
Thank you for your message below, by which you react to the reply provided
by DG JUST on 18 September 2015 to your request for information submitted
on 28 August 2015. You ask the Secretariat-General to verify the
correctness of certain factual information provided by DG JUST in its
above-mentioned reply of 18 September 2015.
Your message of 28 August 2015 to DG JUST related to potential
administrative inconsistencies in the internal workflow of the Commission
services. Aspects such as these are not covered by the scope of Regulation
1049/2001. For this reason, DG JUST made it clear that its letter of 18
September 2015 was a reply to your request for information. Such replies
are provided in line with the provisions of the Code of Good
Administrative Behaviour (point 4 of the Code) which does not envisage any
appeal or review procedure by Secretariat General.
Taking into account the above, we may not recognise your message of 23
September 2015 as a confirmatory application within the meaning of Article
7(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, and we are therefore not in a position to
verify whether the statement by DG JUST is correct.
Yours faithfully,
BLURIOT-PUEBLA Madeleine
Cellule 'Accès aux documents'
European Commission
SG/B/4 - Transparence
BERL 05/330
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
+32 2 296 09 97
[1][email address]
---------------------------------------------------------
-