# Decision in case 1029/2020/DL on the European External Action Service’s refusal to give public access to documents containing information on Member States’ troop contributions to EU missions and operations 
- Author: European Ombudsman
- Date: 2020-10-19T00:00+02:00[Europe/Paris]
- [URL](https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/133944)
---
> The complainant sought public access to documents containing information related to EU missions and operations conducted under the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).
> 
> The European External Action Service (EEAS) disclosed five documents falling under the scope of the request. However, it refused access to documents containing information on individual troop contributions of Member States, considering that it is for each Member State to provide this information. The EEAS moreover stated that disclosing these documents could undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security, defence and military matters, and international relations.
> 
> After her inquiry team inspected the documents, it was confirmed that they indeed contain highly sensitive information. Thus, the Ombudsman concluded that the EEAS was justified in refusing access and closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.
> 
Background to the complaint
---------------------------

**1.**This inquiry concerned the transparency of troop contributions of Member States to EU missions and operations carried out under the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

**2.** The CSDP sets the framework for EU political and military structures, as well as military and civilian missions and operations^[\[1\]](#_ftn1){#_ftnref1}^outside its territory. Such missions and operations are oriented toward peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening of international security.

**3.** The Member States exercise political control and set the strategic direction of CSDP missions and operations. So far, the EU has launched missions and operations^[\[2\]](#_ftn2){#_ftnref2}^ in several countries in Europe, Africa and Asia.

**4.** In February 2020, the complainant made a request for public access^[**\[3\]**](#_ftn3){#_ftnref3}^ to the European External Action Service (EEAS), seeking access to documents which contain the following information: *"a list of all EU CSDP missions and operations conducted since 2003 onwards, specifying for each mission/operation:*

* *the name;*
* *the country where it took - or takes - place;*
* *the start and end year;*
* *the type of mission (military or civilian);*
* *the total number of personnel deployed;*
* *the troop contribution by Member State, and;*
* *the total number of EU personnel deployed".*

**5.** In April 2020, the EEAS replied to the complainant's request. It identified and granted access to three documents falling under the scope of the request.^[\[4\]](#_ftn4){#_ftnref4}^ The EEAS explained that the remaining requested information - namely the total number of personnel deployed, the total number of EU personnel deployed and the troop contribution by Member State - varies continuously and is contained in the so-called 'weekly reports', which are available from November 2008 onwards only. The EEAS refused access to these reports, arguing that disclosure would undermine the protection of public security, defence and military matters, and international relations^[\[5\]](#_ftn5){#_ftnref5}^.

**6.** The complainant then asked the EEAS to review its decision by submitting a so-called 'confirmatory application'. The complainant specified that the main objective of the request was *"to obtain data on the involvement of Member States in EEAS* *missions and operations."*He suggested that the data could be provided by percentages or grouped by region to avoid giving exact numbers.

**7.** In June 2020, the EEAS replied to the complainant ('confirmatory decision'). It gave access to two additional documents containing aggregated data of the total number of personnel deployed on the current missions and operations, as well as aggregated data related to the number of personnel per mission/operation, split by continents.[^\[6\]^](#_ftn6){#_ftnref6} As regards the Member States' individual troop contributions, it reiterated that this information was held in the 'weekly reports' to which it could not grant access.

**8.**Dissatisfied with the EEAS's decision, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman on 12 June 2020.

The inquiry
-----------

**9.**The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the EEAS's refusal to provide public access to the 'weekly reports'.

**10.**In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman's inquiry team met with representatives of the EEAS and inspected samples of the 'weekly reports'.

### Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

*Arguments from the complainant*

**11.** In the complainant's view, the public should know how and to what extent Member States contribute to missions and operations. In addition, in terms of understanding the scope of the missions, the complainant considers it necessary to be able to compare the individual contributions of the Member States involved.

*Arguments from the EEAS*

**12.** The EEAS said that it does not possess a consolidated document or database containing a yearly overview of all the military contributions of Member States. Each mission submits a 'weekly report', giving a breakdown of the number of troops. These documents are classified as 'EU-RESTRICTED'^[\[7\]](#_ftn7){#_ftnref7}^. The reports contain key and sensitive information regarding defence matters, in particular concerning local authorities of the host countries where the CSDP operations and missions take place, including data and assessments of their capacities.

**13.**The EEAS also noted that the exact numbers of deployed personnel is sensitive information, as - in the wrong hands - it could be used to undermine the safety of those personnel or the objectives of the CDSP mission or operation.

**14.**The EEAS further stated that, given that it is a prerogative of each participating country to determine the level of its contribution, it is up to the Member States to decide whether they want to make this information publicly available.

**15.**Unilaterally disclosing the requested documents by the EEAS would affect relations with Member States and could affect their willingness to engage fully in future operations or missions.

**16.** Given that these operations and missions operate in a very delicate political environment at local and international level, the EEAS concluded that disclosing the requested documents could undermine the protection of public security, defence and military matters and international relations.[^\[8\]^](#_ftn8){#_ftnref8}

### The Ombudsman's assessment

**17.** EU missions and operations seek to enhance global stability and promote security in Europe, through tasks such as conflict prevention, joint disarmament and post-conflict stabilisation^[\[9\]](#_ftn9){#_ftnref9}^. Furthermore, they contribute to the fight against terrorism.

**18.**Providing transparency about the operational details of these missions and operations allows the public to identify where and how the EU is active in the field of security. This, in turn, increases the legitimacy of the EU CSDP.

**19.**In light of the above, the Ombudsman welcomes the fact that the EEAS has identified and granted access to five documents containing most of the requested information about CSDP missions and operations.

**20.** Concerning the EEAS's refusal to grant access to information about individual troop contributions by Member States, it should be noted that EU institutions enjoy wide discretion when determining whether the public interest as regards public security, defence and military matters, and international relations could be undermined by disclosing certain information.^[\[10\]](#_ftn10){#_ftnref10}^

**21.**The EEAS contends that disclosing information concerning the individual contributions of the Member States could compromise public security, defence and military matters and international relations.

**22.**The inspection by the Ombudsman's inquiry team of a selection of the 'weekly reports' confirmed that they contain sensitive information throughout. The EEAS's view that disclosing these reports could compromise public security and undermine international relations is reasonable. The Ombudsman moreover considers that the EEAS has given sufficient reasons to justify its decision, in particular considering the potential negative impact on the missions if it were to disclose the reports.

**23.** Concerning the complainant's argument that there is a strong public interest in disclosing the information, it is important to note that, under EU law on public access to documents[^\[11\]^](#_ftn11){#_ftnref11}, the protection of international relations and public security cannot be overridden by any other public interest.

**24.**The Ombudsman thus concludes that the EEAS was justified in refusing disclosure of the 'weekly reports'.

**25.**In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the EEAS.

Conclusion
----------

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

**There was no maladministration by the European External Action Service** **in refusing public access to documents containing information on individual contributions of Member States to missions and operations under the EU Common Security and Defence Policy**.

The complainant and the EEAS will be informed of this decision.

Emily O'Reilly  
European Ombudsman

<br />

Strasbourg, 19/10/2020

[\[1\]](#_ftnref1){#_ftn1} In line with Article 42.1 and 43.1 of the Treaty on European Union, available at [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506-fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1\&format=PDF](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506-fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF).

[\[2\]](#_ftnref2){#_ftn2} Overview of the current EU missions and operations available at: <https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/430/military-and-civilian-missions-and-operations_en>.

[\[3\]](#_ftnref3){#_ftn3} In line with the provisions of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, available at: <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32001R1049>.

[\[4\]](#_ftnref4){#_ftn4} The EEAS granted access to:

**1.** Factsheet containing basic information about CSDP missions and operations such as name of the mission/operation, country(s) where it took ―or takes― place, starting and ending year (if any, ongoing) and type (military or civilian);

**2.** Table containing basic information about CSDP missions and operations such as name of the mission/operation, country(s) where it took ―or takes― place, starting and ending year (if any, ongoing);

**3.** List of the former and current civilian CSDP Missions.

[\[5\]](#_ftnref5){#_ftn5} In accordance with Article 4(1)(a), first, second and third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001.

[\[6\]](#_ftnref6){#_ftn6} The two documents to which the EEAS granted access are:

**1.** Leaflet on EU CSDP Missions and Operations;

**2.** Table providing details on the aggregated data for CSDP missions and operations for the period 2008-2019.

[\[7\]](#_ftnref7){#_ftn7} According to the EU rules on classified information (EUCI), Decision of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 19 September 2017 on the security rules for the European External Action Service ADMIN(2017) 10 (2018/C 126/01).

[\[8\]](#_ftnref8){#_ftn8} Article 4, paragraph (1)(a), first, second and third indent of Regulation 1049/2001.

[\[9\]](#_ftnref9){#_ftn9} Article 43(1) TEU.

[\[10\]](#_ftnref10){#_ftn10} See, for example, judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018, *ClientEarth v Commission* , T-644/16, paragraphs 23-25, available at: [http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=\&docid=203913\&pageIndex=0\&doclang=EN\&mode=lst\&dir=\&occ=first\&part=1\&cid=46943](http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=203913&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=46943).

[\[11\]](#_ftnref11){#_ftn11} Pursuant Article 4, paragraph 1 read in conjunction of paragraph 2, Regulation 1049/2001.