Date: Tuesday, 21 May 2024

Physical location: EEAS premises

Present

From the EEAS:

• Head of Division in the MENA Directorate of the EEAS, Middle East - Israel, Occupied Palestinian Territories and Middle East Peace Process (MENA.2)
• Legal Adviser, Public Access to Documents, EEAS Legal Department (SG.LD)
• Policy Officer, Relations with the European Parliament and inter-institutional relations (SG.2)

From the European Ombudsman

• Jennifer King, Legal Expert
• Alice Bernard, Inquiries Officer
• Michaela Gehring, Inquiries Officer
• Krzesimir Wawrzyczek-Seifert, Trainee

Purpose of the meeting

The purpose of the meeting was for the Ombudsman inquiry team to inspect the documents that were requested by the complainant under the EU legislation on access to documents^[1] in this case as well as the third-party consultations carried out by the EEAS prior to the decision to refuse access. Following this inspection, the objective of the meeting was for the EEAS to provide further explanations to the Ombudsman inquiry team as to the reasons for refusing access to the two documents at issue.

Introduction and procedural information

The Ombudsman inquiry team introduced themselves, thanked the EEAS representatives for meeting with them and set out the purpose of the meeting. They outlined the legal framework that applies to meetings held by the Ombudsman, in particular, that the Ombudsman would not disclose any information identified by the EEAS as confidential, neither to the complainant nor to any other person outside the Ombudsman’s Office, without the EEAS’s prior consent.^[2]

The inquiry team explained that they would draw up a draft report on the meeting to be sent to the EEAS to ensure that the contents were factually accurate and complete. The meeting report would then be finalised, included in the file and provided to the complainant. No confidential information would be included in the report or otherwise provided to the complainant or any third party.

Information exchanged

The EEAS representatives gave a general overview of the current situation in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and the challenges faced by the EU in this crisis. They explained that the public communication on behalf of the EU was particularly delicate at the time of the initial and confirmatory decisions (April 2024) and still is today. They explained that this was due notably to the highly sensitive nature of the armed conflict and the divergence of views among different interlocutors.  

The EEAS representatives further explained that the EU is in a delicate situation regarding the implementation of its policies and its messaging, as Israel is a close partner, while the EU is the biggest contributor to the Palestinian Authority’s budget and a major provider of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian population. The public communication by the EU is a very delicate balancing act, bearing in mind its role as mediator in this conflict. 

The inquiry team then reviewed the two documents at issue in this case (two letters^[3] from Diplomatic missions to Israel's Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) from 2022 co-signed by the EU) and the relevant third-party consultation on their possible disclosure^[4].

After reviewing this documentation, the inquiry team asked what differentiates the content of these letters from what has already been made public, notably through answers by the European Commission to written questions from Members of the European Parliament, and press releases issued by the EEAS and the Commission. The EEAS representatives highlighted certain extracts in the letters that are more detailed than the public statements. They also said that the letters were worded in a way that was intended for bilateral diplomatic exchanges and not for public dissemination. Due to this difference in tone and wording, the EEAS considered that public disclosure of these letters would likely put at risk international relations with both the co-signatories and Israel.

The inquiry team asked about the signatories of the letters and their objections. The EEAS confirmed, as was clear from the inspection of the documents, that one of the signatories was not an EU Member State and it also objected to disclosing the content of the letters. The EEAS also explained that the complainant made similar requests to other signatories. The EEAS clarified that the disclosure of the letters unilaterally by the EU, without the prior consent of third parties, notably of the non-EU signatory, would not only put at risk the international relations with that third country, but also with Israel, with which the EU is in constant high-level diplomatic contact. The EEAS also explained that no parts of the letters could be disclosed without putting at risk these international relations.

The inquiry team asked for further explanations as to the risk to public security also invoked by the EEAS to keep these letters confidential. The EEAS explained how they consider that the disclosure of the letters, even in part, could threaten further the security of the people present on the ground in the territories concerned.

Conclusion of the meeting

The inquiry team thanked the EEAS representatives for their time and for the explanations provided, and the meeting ended.

Brussels, 28 May 2024

 

Jennifer King                                                                                                                                              Alice Bernard

Legal Expert                                                                                                                                               Inquiries Officer

 

[1] Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001R1049&from=EN.

[2] Article 4.8 of the European Ombudsman’s Implementing Provisions.

[3] Described in written replies from the European Commission to written questions of Members of the European Parliament (see for example E-000498/2022 (February 2022) and P-003694/2022 (November 2022)).

[4] The consultation of the co-signatories of the letters following the public access request.