Case T‑375/22
Luisa Izuzquiza and Others
v
European Parliament
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 8 May 2024
(Access to documents – Protection of personal data – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to the allowances and expenses paid to a Member of Parliament and the salaries and allowances of his or her parliamentary assistants – Refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Article 4(1)(b) and (6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 – Protection of the data subject’s legitimate interests – Necessity of the transmission of personal data for a specific purpose in the public interest – Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725)
1. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of privacy and integrity of the individual – Full applicability of the provisions of Regulation 2018/1725 – Obligation on the applicant to demonstrate the need to transfer the personal data in question – Obligation on the institution to verify of its own motion whether the legitimate interests of the data subject have been prejudiced
(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b), and 2018/1725, Arts 3(1), 5 and 9(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 22-28)
2. EU institutions – Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data – Regulation 2018/1725 – Request for access to personal data – Obligation to establish the need to transfer those data – Scope – Public interest justifying disclosure of the data – Need to ascertain the sums allocated to a Member of the European Parliament and how they are used in the exercise of his or her mandate – Factual circumstances of an exceptional nature
(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b), and 2018/1725, Art. 9(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 41-44)
3. EU institutions – Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data – Regulation 2018/1725 – Request for access to personal data – Data relating to the general expenditure allowance and salary paid to a Member of the European Parliament in the exercise of his or her mandate – Obligation to establish the need to transfer those data – Publicly available information – Infringement of that obligation
(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b), and 2018/1725, Art. 9(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 49-55)
4. EU institutions – Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data – Regulation 2018/1725 – Request for access to personal data – Data relating to travel expenses and subsistence allowances paid to a Member of the European Parliament in the exercise of his or her mandate and to the salaries and travel expenses of his or her parliamentary assistants – Obligation to establish the need to transfer those data – Scope
(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b), and 2018/1725, Art. 9(1)(b); European Parliament Decision 2005/684, Art. 21(1) to (3); decision of the Bureau of the Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, Art. 33)
(see paragraphs 56-60, 63, 64, 67-70, 72-78)
5. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual – Scope – Refusal to disclose documents relating to travel expenses and subsistence allowances paid to a Member of the European Parliament in the exercise of his or her mandate and to the travel expenses of his or her parliamentary assistants – Errors of assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b), and 2018/1725, Art. 9(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 65, 79, 96, 97, 111, 112)
6. EU institutions – Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data – Regulation 2018/1725 – Request for access to personal data – Data relating to the allowances and expenses paid to a Member of the European Parliament in the exercise of his or her mandate and to the salaries and allowances of his or her parliamentary assistants – Obligation on the institution to verify of its own motion whether the legitimate interests of the data subjects have been prejudiced – Interests relating to the protection of the free exercise of the mandate of Member of Parliament and the security of the latter – Infringement of the legitimate interests of the data subjects – Absence
(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b) and 2018/1725, Art. 9(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 87, 89-94)
7. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Obligation to grant partial access to data not covered by the exceptions – Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Documents relating to the allowances and expenses paid to a Member of the European Parliament in the exercise of his or her mandate and to the salaries and allowances of his or her parliamentary assistants – Refusal of partial access – Whether permissible
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(6))
(see paragraphs 105-109)
Résumé
Hearing an action for annulment brought by three natural persons, the General Court, ruling in extended composition, annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 8 April 2022 (1) by which that institution refused the applicants access to documents relating to the amounts paid by that institution to Mr Ioannis Lagos, a Member of the Parliament, and to his parliamentary assistants, in the context of that Member’s mandate. In so doing, the Court clarifies the exception relating to public access to documents, based on the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual provided for in Regulation No 1049/2001. (2) It finds that the Parliament should have authorised access to documents containing personal data concerning Mr Lagos and his parliamentary assistants and which related, more specifically, to the reimbursements of travel expenses and subsistence allowances paid to Mr Lagos by that institution and to the reimbursements of travel expenses of his assistants.
Mr Lagos was elected in Greece and took office as a Member of the European Parliament on 2 July 2019. On 7 October 2020, he was sentenced by the Greek courts to a term of imprisonment of 13 years and 8 months and to payment of a fine for membership and leadership of a criminal organisation and for two minor offences. Following the waiver of his parliamentary immunity, on 27 April 2021, Mr Lagos was arrested by the Belgian authorities and surrendered to the Greek authorities. Mr Lagos is currently serving his prison sentence in Greece.
After his criminal conviction, the waiver of his immunity and his imprisonment, Mr Lagos did not resign from his mandate as a Member of the European Parliament. Moreover, his conviction did not give rise to any communication from the Greek authorities to the Parliament concerning the withdrawal of his mandate.
On 7 December 2021, the applicants submitted to the Parliament an application for access to documents concerning Mr Lagos, based on Regulation No 1049/2001 and concerning all the documents relating to the allowances paid to Mr Lagos and to the expenses linked to the salaries of his accredited and local parliamentary assistants. By decision of 4 February 2022, the Parliament refused to grant the applicants access to those documents. Following a confirmatory application by the applicants, the Parliament adopted the contested decision by which it confirmed its initial refusal to grant them access to the requested documents, relying on the exception to the right of access to documents concerning the protection of personal data, provided for in Regulation No 1049/2001 and the obligation for the applicants to prove the need for the transmission of personal data for a specific purpose in the public interest, under Regulation 2018/1725. (3)
Findings of the Court
As a preliminary point, the Court points out that Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725 makes the transmission of personal data subject to the fulfilment of a number of cumulative conditions. Thus, the applicant for access must demonstrate the necessity of the transmission of personal data for a specific purpose in the public interest, then establish that that transmission is the most appropriate of the possible measures for attaining the objective pursued and that it is proportionate to that objective. Once this has been demonstrated, the institution concerned is required to determine that there is no reason to assume that that transmission might prejudice the legitimate interests of the data subject and, in such a case, to weigh, in a demonstrable manner, the various competing interests with a view to assessing the proportionality of the requested transmission of personal data.
Thus, in the first place, the Court examines, in the context of the exception to the right of access to documents concerning the protection of personal data, (4) whether the applicants fulfilled the obligation to prove the necessity of the transmission of personal data for a specific purpose in the public interest. (5)
It undertakes, first, an analysis of whether the purpose relied on by the applicants for the transmission of the personal data at issue constitutes a specific purpose in the public interest.
In that regard, the Court states that that transmission may be based on a general objective, such as the public’s right to information concerning the conduct of Members of the Parliament in the exercise of their duties. In the present case, the purpose relied on by the applicants was to ascertain the specific amounts of the sums allocated by the Parliament to Mr Lagos during the period concerned and the manner in which those sums had been used in the exercise of his mandate as a Member of Parliament in order to facilitate public control, in the light of Mr Lagos’ access to public funds. Contrary to the Parliament’s assertions, that purpose is not general, but specifically linked to the particular circumstances of the case in question, which are quite exceptional in nature. They concern a Member of the Parliament who, after having been sentenced, inter alia, to a term of imprisonment of 13 years and 8 months for having, in particular, committed serious crimes, such as membership of a criminal organisation and its leadership, remained a Member of the Parliament and continued to receive allowances corresponding to the exercise of that function. Accordingly, in the light of those circumstances, the Parliament was wrong to refuse to recognise the purpose put forward by the applicants as a specific purpose in the public interest.
Secondly, the Court analyses whether the applicants demonstrated the necessity of the transmission of personal data, and in particular whether that transmission was the most appropriate measure for attaining the specific public interest objective pursued by the applicants and whether it was proportionate to that objective.
First, as regards the general expenses allowance (6) and Mr Lagos’ monthly salary, (7) the Court finds that the information on those rights is freely accessible to the public on the Parliament’s website. Since disclosure of the personal data in question was therefore not the most appropriate measure for attaining the objective pursued by the applicants, they have failed to demonstrate the necessity of such a transmission. According to the Court, the situation is different as regards the reimbursement of travel expenses and the payment of the subsistence allowance of Members, in so far as the information publicly available in that regard does not make it possible to ascertain either the amounts paid by the Parliament to Mr Lagos, in the exercise of his mandate as a Member of Parliament, during the period concerned, or the purpose of the travel, the destination or the route taken by him. Thus, in so far as the transmission of those data would enable the public to have access to that information, disclosure of those data is a more appropriate measure for attaining the objective pursued by the applicants than access to information which is already in the public domain. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the transmission of the data relating to Mr Lagos constitutes a measure necessary to achieve the specific public interest objective relied on by the applicants to justify the transmission of the personal data at issue and that the Parliament was wrong to find that the applicants had not fulfilled the obligation to demonstrate the necessity of that transmission for that purpose.
Secondly, as regards the salaries of Mr Lagos’ accredited and local assistants, the Court points out that they are paid to them irrespective of their specific activities in the context of the parliamentary assistance provided to Mr Lagos. Accordingly, in so far as the transmission of documents concerning the payment of those salaries cannot provide the applicants with information about any direct or indirect contribution to the financing or perpetuation of a criminal or unlawful activity by Mr Lagos, the applicants have failed to demonstrate the need for such a transmission. However, the expenses relating to the travel of Mr Lagos’ parliamentary assistants are closely linked to his activities and may give indications of a possible connection, even if only indirect, with illegal activities carried out by Mr Lagos. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the transmission of personal data contained in the documents relating to the reimbursement of those costs is a measure necessary to achieve the purpose relied on by the applicants and that the Parliament was wrong to consider that the applicants had not fulfilled the obligation to demonstrate the necessity of the transmission of personal data for a specific purpose in the public interest.
In the second place, the Court rules on the possible prejudice to the legitimate interests of Mr Lagos and his assistants, caused by the transmission of the personal data at issue. In that regard, in examining the proportionality of that transmission, the Court balances the various competing interests. (8) Thus, as regards, on the one hand, the interest in protecting the free exercise of a Member’s mandate, as regards the request for access to information relating to the reimbursement of travel expenses and subsistence allowances received by Mr Lagos, public knowledge of such journeys is not such as to restrict, in one way or another, the free exercise of his mandate. Accordingly, it has not been demonstrated how the disclosure of information about the journeys made was likely to affect the free exercise of the mandate of Member of the European Parliament. So far as concerns, on the other hand, the interest in ensuring Mr Lagos’ security, in the case of documents relating to subsistence allowances and reimbursements of travel expenses received in the past, the security of the Member can in principle no longer be regarded as being jeopardised by the transmission of the personal data at issue, in so far as it concerns travels which had already taken place at the time when the applicants’ request was made. While it is true that disclosure to the public of Mr Lagos’ recurrent travels, in particular to a private home in Greece, could be prejudicial to his security, the Court emphasises that it is for the Parliament, when weighing up competing interests, to ensure the protection of personal data essential to Mr Lagos’ security, such as his personal address. Furthermore, as regards Mr Lagos’ security during his future journeys in the exercise of his mandate, the question does not arise in so far as Mr Lagos was imprisoned on the date of the contested decision and could not therefore travel. In that context, the Court considers that, as the journeys at issue took place during a period when Mr Lagos had already been convicted of serious crimes, it was therefore legitimate for the applicants to be able to obtain information about the purpose and destinations of those journeys. Since the risks of a possible prejudice to the free exercise of Mr Lagos’ mandate and to his security are not sufficient to justify the refusal to disclose the personal data at issue, the Parliament was wrong to consider that the transmission of those data would prejudice the legitimate interests of Mr Lagos and his assistants and that, having weighed up the various competing interests, such a transmission would not be proportionate.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court annuls the contested decision in so far as the Parliament refused access to the documents, containing personal data concerning Mr Lagos, relating to reimbursements of travel expenses and subsistence allowances paid to him by the Parliament and to the documents, containing personal data concerning Mr Lagos’ parliamentary assistants, relating to reimbursements of travel expenses received by them.