The EU Commission Tries To Silence Data Retention Critic

The EU Commission wants to prevent German Pirate Dr. Patrick Breyer from discussing his court case against the Commission in public

Dr. Patrick Breyer is the group leader for the Pirate Party in the regional parliament of Schleswig-Holstein. He is also a juris doctor, who wrote his thesis on the subject of data retention, and one of Germany’s leading experts on the subject.

In April this year, acting as a private citizen before he was elected, he made a complaint against the EU Commission because the Commission had refused to give access to documents in a court case about the Data Retention Directive and its implementation (Az. T-188/12).

The latest move in the still ongoing court battle between Dr. Breyer and the Commission over transparency, is that the Commission has demanded that Dr. Breyer removes from the internet both his own complaint  (pdf, cached) and the Commission’s answer to him (pdf, cached). Dr. Breyer of course refuses to do so.

I find it very remarkable that the Commission apparently is trying to silence an elected member of a parliament who is working on behalf of his constituents

For this reason, I have put the following formal written question to the Commission:

Transparency in court cases about complaints against the Commission

Dr. Patrick Breyer, who is a European citizen and a member of the regional parliament of Schleswig-Holstein, has made a complaint against the EU Commission, because the Commission had refused to give access to documents in a court case regarding the Data Retention Directive and its implementation (Az. T-188/12).

In this context, the Commission has requested that Dr. Breyer removes both his own complaint and the Commission’s answer to him from from the internet, where he has published them.

1. Does the Commission have as a general policy to refuse any access to court documents even in completed cases, such as the case Az. T-188/12 ?

2. If yes, for how long has this policy been in effect, and how many requests for documents have been denied during each year that the policy has been in effect?

3. If no, why did the Commission refuse Dr. Breyer access to those documents?

4. Why has the Commission demanded that Dr. Breyer should remove his complaint against the Commission, as well as the Commission’s answer, from the internet, where he has published them?

5. If a Member of the European Parliament were to republish those two documents, would the Commission issue a similar demand against the MEP? If yes, on what legal basis? If no, why not, considering it has already made this demand on the citizen who made the complaint against the Commission?

An answer from the Commision can be expected in about six weeks, according to the rules for written questions from members of the European Parliament.