12425/17 bb/ar 1
DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
Rat der
Europäischen Union
Brüssel, den 14. Dezember 2017 (OR. en)
12425/17
LIMITE INF 163 API 117
I/A-PUNKT-VERMERK
Absender: Gruppe "Information"
Empfänger: Ausschuss der Ständigen Vertreter (2. Teil)/Rat Nr. Vordok.: 12424/17
Betr.: Zugang der Öffentlichkeit zu Dokumenten – Zweitantrag Nr. 22/c/01/17
Die Delegationen erhalten in der Anlage den Entwurf einer Antwort des Rates auf den Zweitantrag Nr. 22/c/01/17; diesen Entwurf hat die Gruppe im Wege einer schriftlichen Konsultation, die am 14. Dezember 2017 abgeschlossen wurde, mit Gegenstimmen Deutschlands, Spaniens, Frankreichs, Italiens, Ungarns und Polens bei Stimmenthaltungen Dänemarks gebilligt.
Folgende Erklärungen wurden abgegeben:
DK : "Dänemark enthält sich der Stimme in Bezug auf die Dokumente 1451/15, 5312/16, 5564/16 und 8044/17 und verweist auf die Option Dänemarks, sich nicht am Erlass von Maßnahmen im Bereich Justiz und Inneres zu beteiligen. In Bezug auf Dokument 9221/17 können wir mit
"Ja" antworten."
12425/17 bb/ar 2
DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
DE: "Nach Auffassung Deutschlands sind die Dokumente, die sich direkt auf die Verhandlungen über das GEMEINSAME EUROPÄISCHE ASYLSYSTEM (GEAS) beziehen (d.h. Dokument 8044/17 und Dokument 9221/17), insbesondere unter Berücksichtigung des Artikels 4 Absatz 3 der VERORDNUNG (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS UND DES RATES vom 30. Mai 2001, nicht für eine Veröffentlichung geeignet.
Wie in dem Antwortentwurf korrekt dargelegt wurde, sind die GEAS-Verhandlungen politisch sehr heikel, und in mehreren wesentlichen Punkten konnte noch keine Einigung der Mitglied- staaten erzielt werden.
In Bezug auf Dokument 8044/17 könnte man sich fragen, ob nur die Definition des Begriffs
"Familienmitglied" als heikel einzustufen ist oder ob gleiches nicht auch für andere Defi- nitionen wie die Begriffe "Fluchtgefahr" oder "unbegleitete Minderjährige" gilt.
Darüber hinaus stellt sich die Frage, welches Signal durch die Veröffentlichung des voll- ständigen Dokuments mit der ausdrücklichen Ausnahme einer einzigen Bestimmung aus- gesandt wird. Dies könnte zu weiteren Anträgen auf Zugang zu diesem spezifischen Thema führen.
In Bezug auf Dokument 9221/17 kann Deutschland darüber hinaus nicht sehen, warum ein- zelne Teile veröffentlicht werden sollten und andere nicht. Die Dublin-IV-Verordnung ist ein Rechtsakt, der –im Rahmen der GEAS-Reform – besonders kontrovers diskutiert wird mit zum Teil noch weit auseinanderlaufenden Meinungen in den Mitgliedstaaten.
Dieser Rechtsakt ist daher in seiner Gesamtheit ein äußerst heikles Thema, über das derzeit noch verhandelt wird und zu dem kein teilweiser Zugang gewährt werden sollte, um einen Erfolg der Verhandlungen nicht zu gefährden.
Deutschland hat keine Einwände gegen die Veröffentlichung der anderen Dokumente."
12425/17 bb/ar 3
DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
FR: "Unserer Ansicht nach sollte der Zugang zu den genannten Dokumenten auf der Grundlage des Artikels 4 Absatz 3 der Verordnung Nr. 1049/2001 verweigert werden. Da aus den Doku- mente die auseinanderlaufenden Standpunkte der Delegationen hervorgehen, würde der Zugang zu ihnen darüber hinaus den Standpunkt des Rates in den laufenden oder bevor- stehenden Verhandlungen mit dem Parlament beeinträchtigen.
Ein teilweiser Zugang – als zweitbeste Lösung – hätte restriktiver sein müssen als vom Generalsekretariat des Rates vorgeschlagen. Im Folgenden finden Sie eine detaillierte Beschreibung der Dokumententeile, zu denen der Zugang verweigert werden sollte oder zu denen der Zugang gewährt werden könnte:
– 8044/17 in Bezug auf die gemeinsamen Begriffsbestimmungen: Der Zugang zu Artikel 2 Nummer 19 auf Seite 3, zu Artikel 4 Buchstabe f auf Seite 4 und zu Nummer 12 auf Seite 9, die vom Rat für einen Zugang vorgeschlagen werden, sollte verweigert werden. Diese drei
Kompromissvorschläge zielen alle auf die Streichung der in dem Kommissionsvorschlag vor- gesehenen Bestimmung über die Vormundschaft für unbegleitete Minderjähriger ab. Es handelt sich hierbei um eine heikle Frage auf europäischer Ebene, die sich in den Verhand- lungen im Rat als gewichtiger Stolperstein erwiesen hat, und es ist davon auszugehen, dass die Triloggespräche sich schwierig gestalten werden.
– 9221/17: Wir schließen uns den deutschen Argumenten für eine Verweigerung des Zugangs zu dem gesamten Dokument (über die Dublin-Verordnung) angesichts des besonders heiklen Charakters des Textes an.
– 14951/15, 5312/16 und 5564/16 in Bezug auf den dauerhaften Umsiedlungsmechanismus:
Obwohl hierüber nicht mehr verhandelt wird, ist diese Frage sehr eng mit der Neufassung der Dublin-Verordnung verbunden. Zugang könnte nur zu den Seiten 12-13 (Definition des
Begriffs "Umsiedlung" und Verpflichtung zur Rücknahme einer umgesiedelte Person) sowie zu Artikel 33d über ergänzende Maßnahmen des von einer Umsiedlung profitierenden Mit- gliedstaats (der aus den Verhandlungen herausgefallen ist) und vielleicht noch zu den Erwägungsgründen gewährt werden, die zum Großteil in den Beschlüssen über die Ad-hoc- Umsiedlung enthalten sind."
IT: In Bezug auf den im Betreff genannten Antrag ist die zuständige Behörde nach der erforder- lichen Prüfung zu der Auffassung gelangt, dass es nicht möglich ist, Zugang zu den in dem Vermerk des Generalsekretariats des Rates genannten Dokumenten zu gewähren. Die Stand- punkte, die von den Delegationen, einschließlich Italien, zum Ausdruck gebracht werden, beziehen sich auf laufende Verhandlungen und sind für Außenstehende irrelevant. Darüber hinaus können sie sich während der Verhandlungen noch ändern und geben nicht den jüngsten Standpunkt des Mitgliedstaates wieder."
12425/17 bb/ar 4
DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
HU: "Ungarn ist der Auffassung, dass Artikel 4 Absatz 3 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 auf alle angeforderten Dokumente in ihrer Gesamtheit angewandt werden sollte, da die Doku- mente vorläufige interne Überlegungen in einem Beschlussfassungsprozess widerspiegeln, der noch nicht abgeschlossen ist, und ihre Freigabe daher die Verhandlungen in einem äußerst kontroversen Bereich der EU-Politik, nämlich dem Bereich Migration und Asyl, beeinträch- tigen könnte.
Darüber hinaus ist Ungarn der Auffassung, dass die Anführung konkreter Presseartikel unter Nummer 16 des Antwortentwurfs als Beispiele in einer juristischen Argumentation irrelevant und unnötig sind und deshalb unterlassen werden sollte."
PL: "Polen stimmt dem Antwortentwurf über die Verleihung des teilweisen Zugangs zu den Doku- menten 14951/15, 5312/16, 5564/16, 8044/17 und 9221/17 nicht zu.
Unser Haupteinwand bezieht sich auf die Gewährung des Zugangs zu den oben genannten Dokumenten, da sie den Beschlussfassungsprozess im Rat beschreiben und Aufschluss über die allgemeinen Präferenzen der Mitgliedstaaten in Bezug auf mögliche politische Lösungen für EU-Rechtsvorschriften im Bereich Migration und Asyl geben.
Unserer Ansicht nach fällt dies unter die Ausnahmen nach Artikel 4 Absatz 3 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001."
12425/17 bb/ar 5
DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
Die Delegationen haben der Veröffentlichung des Abstimmungsergebnisses zugestimmt.
Der Ausschuss der Ständigen Vertreter wird daher ersucht, dem Rat zu empfehlen, dass er auf seiner nächsten Tagung
– dem in der Anlage enthaltenen Antwortentwurf als A-Punkt zustimmt und – beschließt, das Abstimmungsergebnis zu veröffentlichen.
Die Anlage liegt nur in englischer Sprache vor.
12425/17 bb/ar 6
ANLAGE DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
ANLAGE DRAFT
REPLY ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL ON ...
TO CONFIRMATORY APPLICATION 22/c/01/17, made by email on 20 September 2017,
pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001,
for public access to documents 14951/15, 5312/16, 5564/16, 8044/17 and 9221/17.
The Council has considered this confirmatory application under 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 L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43) (hereafter referred to as "Regulation No 1049/2001") and Annex II to the Council’s Rules of Procedure (Council Decision 2009/937/EU, Official Journal L 325, 11.12.2009, p. 35) and has come to the following conclusion:
1. On 1 August 2017, the applicant submitted a request for access to the following documents:
Document 14951/15 which is a Note of 3 December 2015 from the Presidency to Delegations on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a crisis relocation mechanism and amending Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third country national or a stateless person Document 5312/16 which is an Outcome of Proceedings of 18 January 2016 from the General Secretariat of the Council to Delegations on the same Proposal,
Document 5564/16 which is an Outcome of Proceedings of 2 February 2016 from the General Secretariat of the Council to Delegations on the same Proposal,
12425/17 bb/ar 7
ANLAGE DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
Document 8044/17 which is a Note of 10 April 2017 from the Presidency to Delegations on cross-cutting definitions on the Qualification Regulation, the Asylum Procedure Regulation, the Dublin Regulation and the Reception Conditions Directive and
Document 9221/17 which is a Note of 17 May 2017 from the Presidency to Delegations on Limiting abuse and secondary movements - Dublin Regulation.
2. In its reply dated 11 September 2017, the General Secretariat of the Council refused access to these documents pursuant to Article 4(3), first subparagraph of Regulation No 1049/2001, since their disclosure would seriously undermine the decision-making process of the Council.
3. In the confirmatory application dated 20 September 2017 and registered the same day, the applicant asks the Council to reconsider this position.
4. The applicant motivates this review request by arguing that giving access to the requested documents would not seriously undermine the Council's Decision making process. The content of the documents would not be published nor shared but would solely serve doctoral research, the results of which would not become public before October 2018.
5. The Council has carefully considered the confirmatory application. Having thoroughly examined the documents concerned by the request and carried out renewed consultations. It has re-assessed the request for access in full consideration of the principles underlying Regulation No 1049/2001, with the aim of ensuring the widest possible public access to documents.
6. In so doing the Council has carefully scrutinized the content of the documents, having due regard to the current state of play on negotiations related to these issues.
12425/17 bb/ar 8
ANLAGE DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
Irrelevance of the scientific interest of the applicant
7. Article 6(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides inter alia that "The applicant is not obliged to state reasons for the application".
8. The Council has considered that, as stated in particular in its recital 4, the purpose of Regulation 1049/2001 is to give the general public a right of access to documents of the institutions and not to lay down rules designed to protect the particular interest which a specific individual may have in gaining access to them.
9. This principle of "erga omnes" has been confirmed in constant case law of the European Court of Justice (see for example case T-439/08, Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA)1.
10. The assessment of a request for access to documents therefore can not depend on the nature of the particular interest which the applicant for access may or may not have in obtaining the information requested (see for example C-266/05 Sison v Council,2 and joined cases T-424/14 and T-425/14 Client Earth vs Commission3).
11. The Council therefore cannot take into account the private interests of the applicant i.e. that the requested documents contribute to the applicant's doctoral research, but needs to
reconsider the request in the light of the public interest and the principles underlying Regulation 1049/2001.
12. The Council therefore has to reject the applicant's claim.
1 ECLI:EU:T:2010:442 paragraph 116
2 EU:C:2007:75, paragraphs 43 and 44
3 ECLI:EU:T:2015:848 paragraph 121
12425/17 bb/ar 9
ANLAGE DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
The general context relating to the requested documents and the exception concerning the protection of the decision making
13. The proposals which are the subject of the request (Dublin Regulation, Qualification
Regulation, Asylum Procedures Regulation, Reception Conditions Directive) form part of a larger package aiming at reforming the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and a variety of provisions of the proposals are tightly interlinked.
14. The Council fully acknowledges that a wider access to documents should be granted when the Institutions are acting in their legislative capacity. However, this does not exclude the
possibility that an Institution can refuse, when the circumstances so require, access to documents relating to a legislative procedure. As a matter of fact, nothing in Regulation 1049/2001 allows to exclude from the scope of the exception laid down in Article 4(3) first subparagraph the whole category of legislative documents. Moreover, recital 6 of the Regulation makes it very clear that the effectiveness of decision-making has to be preserved even in the legislative domain.
15. The Council considers that in the present case the circumstances are such that the recourse to the decision making exception is justified, despite the particular need for transparency that is
generally associated with the legislative procedure.
12425/17 bb/ar 10
ANLAGE DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
16. All the proposals mentioned in point 13 are highly sensitive from a political point of view. In particular, discussion on the effective application of the principles of solidarity and responsibility has been high on the political agenda of EU leaders since the beginning of the migration crisis in 2015 and one can expect that it will continue to be the case in the months to come. In the context of the reform of the CEAS and more particular Dublin Regulation, agreement on these principles has so far not been possible within the Council, with discussions taking place on a continuous basis among EU leaders (e.g. European Council Conclusions of 22 and 23 June 2017). The sensitivity of this issue can be further demonstrated by numerous public statements of some of the EU leaders and high level politicians as well as the fact that it has attracted high media attention. (e.g. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/09/08/pm-viktor-orban-hungary-is-not-an- immigrant-country-and-does-not-want-to-become-one/,
http://v4.gov.hu/download/5/9b/d1000/20170719-v4-letter-paolo-gentiloni-migration.pdf, http://mailchi.mp/socialistsanddemocrats/pittella-sd-group-urges-tusk-to-call-before-summer- break-an-extraordinary-eu-council-summit-on-migration-waiting-until-october-it-would-be- outrageous?e=1942b8a386
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-refugee-day-italy-migrants/italy-chides-eu-partners-for-lack-of- solidarity-in-migrant-crisis-idUKKBN19B271)
17. The sensitivity applies also as regards the establishment of positions in the Member States which requires the involvement and coordination between a large number of domestic actors and is further increased by domestic changes of government and/or elections as well as by the transformation of some of the instruments from the current Directive into a Regulation
(Qualification Regulation and Asylum Procedures Regulation).
12425/17 bb/ar 11
ANLAGE DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
The exception concerning the protection of the decision making process (Art.4.3 (first subparagraph of the Regulation) for documents 14591/15, 5312/16 and 5564/16
18. Documents 14591/15, 5312/16 and 5564/16 concern the proposal from the Commission of September 2015 for a 'crisis relocation mechanism', which was supposed to establish, by amending the Dublin Regulation, a permanent framework to deal with crisis situations in any Member State generated by large and disproportionate inflow of persons and achieve a fair sharing of responsibilities between Member States in times of crisis. The proposal was discussed by Council preparatory bodies until February 2016. In May 2016, the Commission proposed an overall reform of the Dublin Regulation, which also included a 'corrective allocation mechanism', the objective of which was similar to the 'crisis relocation mechanism' proposed in September 2015. Despite the fact that the proposal of 2015 was not formally withdrawn by the Commission and the discussion within the Council discontinued in view of the new reform proposals, the documents in question are nevertheless still relevant in the current context since they contain drafting suggestions by the Presidency and positions of delegations which are linked to the recast Dublin Regulation which is now under discussion.
12425/17 bb/ar 12
ANLAGE DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
19. A very limited number of modifications and drafting suggestions contain sensitive issues relating to certain sensitive aspects of the crisis relocation mechanism, namely the criteria for determining the relocations. These provisions are linked to the current discussion on the 'corrective allocation mechanism' under the reform Dublin Regulation, in particular Articles 34-43, and the Dublin reform in general (scope of the Regulation).
20. In this sense, disclosing, prior to their finalisation, certain draft provisions and positions of Member States could feed into speculations.
21. Disclosure of certain information on such a sensitive issue as the future solidarity mechanism at a moment when delegations are seeking to find the appropriate balance of the various interests involved, would expose them to undue pressures by stakeholders directly or indirectly affected by the legislative measures under discussion. This pressure would affect the negotiating process and diminish the chances of the Council reaching an agreement. Disclosure of certain elements of documents 14591/15, 5312/16 and 5564/16 would therefore seriously undermine the decision making-process of the Council.
22. The Council has weighed the interest of the applicant in being informed of progress in this area against the general interest that progress be made in a wide area that is still the subject of negotiations. It considers that, at this stage, disclosure of these documents would be premature in that it would impede the proper conduct of the negotiations and compromise the conclusion of an agreement on this subject.
23. The Council considers that, on balance, the principle of transparency which underlies the Regulation would not, in the present case, prevail over the above indicated interests so as to justify disclosure of the documents.
12425/17 bb/ar 13
ANLAGE DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
The exception concerning the protection of the decision making process (Art.4.3 (first subparagraph of the Regulation) for documents 8044/17 and 9221/17
24. Document 8044/17 contains cross-cutting definitions and document 9221/17 parts of the recast Dublin Regulation proposing modifications and drafting suggestions of the Presidency linked to the theme 'Limiting abuse and secondary movements'. Certain of the modifications and drafting suggestions contained in the two documents cover provisions which are common to other elements of the aforementioned European Asylum System reform package. Certain definitions contained in Art. 2 of Qualification Regulation or Art. 4 of Asylum Procedures Regulation (notably on "family members") are to be found also in other proposals of the package.
25. Disclosing all the positions, amendments and drafting suggestions contained in these documents would therefore also involve the disclosure of assessments related the other proposals of the European Asylum System reform package which are likewise still under discussion.
26. The reform of the European Asylum System is an extremely delicate and volatile puzzle and the disclosure of some of its key elements such as definitions or measures aimed at preventing secondary movements or provisions aimed at ensuring swift and efficient procedures would negatively impact on the balance of the package.
27. Disclosing these elements would moreover lead to speculations based on positions which have not been agreed yet. It is common knowledge that among the pull factors fuelling
migratory flows towards Europe are misrepresentations, speculations and false information of the EU immigration system. This is particular the case in relation to misrepresentations concerning the rights and benefits a person is entitled to when arriving in Europe, measures that exist (or not) to prevent secondary movements including consequences of further onward movements to other Member States, or the procedures to be followed when the applicant moves to another Member State than the Member State responsible.
12425/17 bb/ar 14
ANLAGE DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
Such misrepresentations, based on distorted bits and pieces of information, are often used by smugglers to lure migrants into the dangerous journey towards Europe. In this sense,
disclosing, prior to their finalisation, certain draft provisions and positions of Member States regarding for example the concept of "family members" which determines persons who could eventually be granted international protection would only feed into such speculations.
28. Disclosure would put unnecessary pressure on delegations by stakeholders directly or indirectly affected by the legislative measures under discussion. This pressure would affect the
negotiating process and diminish the chances of the Council reaching an agreement.
Disclosure of documents 8044/17 and 9221/17, would therefore seriously undermine the decision making-process of the Council .
29. The Council has weighed the interest of the applicant in being informed of progress in this area against the general interest that progress be made in a wide area that is still the subject of negotiations. It considers that, at this stage, disclosure of the documents would be premature in that it would impede the proper conduct of the negotiations and compromise the conclusion of an agreement on this subject.
30. The Council considers that on balance, the principle of transparency which underlies the Regulation would not, in the present case, prevail over the above indicated public interests so as to justify disclosure of the documents.
The exception concerning the protection of the public interest as regards international relations (Article 4.1 (a) 3rd indent of the Regulation) as regards documents 14951/15, 5312/16, 5564/16, 8044/17 and 9221/17
31. The Council notes that some issues touched upon by the proposals of the European Asylum System reform package affect also the EU relations with third countries.
12425/17 bb/ar 15
ANLAGE DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
32. The Council recalls that, according to the established case law of the Court of Justice, the public interest exceptions laid down in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 are subject to a particular regime if compared to the other exceptions included in Article 4.
33. On the one hand, "the Council must be recognised as enjoying a wide discretion for the purpose of determining whether the disclosure of documents relating to the fields covered by those exceptions relating to the public interest provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 could undermine the public interest"4.
34. On the other hand, once the Council has come to the conclusion that release would indeed undermine the public interest in this area, it has no choice but to refuse access, because "it is clear from the wording of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 that, as regards the exceptions to the right of access provided for by that provision, refusal of access by the institution is mandatory where disclosure of a document to the public would undermine the interests which that provision protects, without the need, in such a case and in contrast to the provisions, in particular, of Article 4(2), to balance the requirements connected to the
protection of those interests against those which stem from other interests"5.
35. Therefore, the Council enjoys a wide discretion in assessing the probable impact of the release of a document on international relations but is barred from taking into account other
legitimate interests in order to override the conclusion that giving access to a document would harm the protected interest and grant access nonetheless.
36. In this particular case, the 'crisis relocation mechanism' (documents 5564/16, 5312/16, and 14951/15), the definition of 'family members' (document 8044/17) and measures to prevent secondary movements (document 9221/17) are all issues that have a direct impact on relations with third countries.
4 ECJ case C-266/05, Sison, para. 35.
5 ECJ case C-266/05, Sison, para. 46.
12425/17 bb/ar 16
ANLAGE DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
37. Although the European Asylum System reform package applies exclusively to Member States, the object of its provisions are citizens of third countries. The disclosure of certain elements of the proposals which are not agreed yet and which reflect Member States' positions could potentially negatively affect EU relations with countries of origin of asylum-seekers.
38. This is particularly so in a moment when the EU Institutions are aware that the ability of the Union to engage with third countries is key to address the current migration crisis. Renewed political and diplomatic efforts are being devoted to tackle its root causes and to mitigate its effects. In such a context, the disclosure of the parts identified above and notably the ongoing internal debate of Member States about them, would harm the relations with countries whose nationals could be concerned by the provision and finally affect the foreign policy objectives of the Union and of the Member States.
39. For these reasons, the identified parts of the requested documents have also to be refused in light of the exception relating to the protection of the public interest as regards international relations (Article 4(1)(a)) third indent of Regulation 1049/2001).
Application of Art.4 (6) of Regulation 1049/2001 to documents 14951/15, 5312/16, 5564/16, 8044/17 and 9221/17
40. Having regard to the above, the Council has also reassessed with great care the possibility to grant access to certain parts of the documents which do not fall under the exception of Article 4.1 (a) 3rd indent and/or under the exception of Art.4.3 (first) subparagraph) as indicated above.
41. As a result of this assessment the Council has come to the conclusion that only limited parts of the requested documents actually fall within the scope of the invoked exceptions and is therefore in the position of granting access to most of them.
12425/17 bb/ar 17
ANLAGE DG F 2B
LIMITE DE
Conclusion
42. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Council concludes that:
Pursuant to Article 4 (6) of Regulation 1049/2001 partial access can be granted to those parts of documents 14951/15, 5312/16, 5564/16, 8044/17 and 9221/17 that do not fall under the exception of Article 4.1.a.3rd indent of Regulation 1049/2001 and/or under the exception of Art.4.3 (first subparagraph).
43. The applicant may therefore have access to:
- document 14951/15 : the full document except to Art.1 (4) point 6 on pages 16-17 and to the part on Art.33c on page 19;
- document 5312/16: the full document except to Art.1 (4) point 6 on pages 17-18 and to the part on Art.33c on page 20;
- document 5564/16: the full document except to Art.1 (4) point 6 on pages 18-19 and to the part on Art.33c on page 21;
- document 8044/17: the cover page, on page 2: Article 2 (7), (8), on page 3: (10) to (19), on page 4: Article 4 (a to xa), on page 5: (i), on page 6 (j) to (n) and Article 2 (1) to (2), on page 7: (2)(b) - in strikethrough), on pages 8/9: (4) to (12) and on page 10: "Eurodac" (a) to (e);
- document 9221/17: the full document except to Article 5 on pages 4 to 6, to the part of Article 21 on page 16, to Article 24 on pages 16-17 and to Section IV on pages 21-23
