The case was
started by an importer of German beer, the Bavarian Lager Company,
more than 14 years ago. In the 1990s it had difficulty selling to
British pubs because many were tied into exclusive purchasing
agreements with their brewery owners. A UK law, known as the 'Guest
Beer Provision', obliges breweries to allow managers of their pubs
to stock one rival beer. However, the law originally stipulated
that the guest beer should be a cask-conditioned beer – which
excludes most beers brewed outside the UK.
Bavarian Lager complained to the European Commission in 1993,
arguing that this law discriminated against imported beers. A
meeting followed in 1996, attended by representatives of the
Commission, the UK Government and a trade association. A request by
Bavarian Lager to attend was rejected.
A few months after that meeting, the UK proposed an amendment to
the Guest Beer Provision, effectively opening the market to
continental beers. The Commission dropped its investigation.
Bavarian Lager then asked for access to certain documents under
EU freedom of information rules, including the names of meeting
attendees. The Commission refused that request and Bavarian Lager
complained to the European Ombudsman.
According to Ombudsman Jacob Söderman, reporting in 2000,
Bavarian Lager suspected "improper behaviour by certain persons
who, at relevant times, were amongst the UK officials and
politicians responsible for the brewing industry." Söderman ruled
that the Commission should disclose the requested information to
Bavarian Lager.
The Commission disclosed to Bavarian Lager the minutes of the
1996 meeting. But the names of five persons who had attended that
meeting had been blanked out. Two of them had expressly objected to
disclosure of their identity and the Commission had been unable to
contact the other three.
Bavarian Lager asked for the full minutes, containing the names
of all the participants. The Commission said no.
The Commission took the view that Bavarian Lager had not
established either an express and legitimate purpose or any need
for such disclosure, as was required, so it argued, by the
regulation on the protection of personal data (22-page /
234KB PDF), and that, therefore, the exception concerning the
protection of private life, laid down by the regulation
on public access to documents (6-page / 120KB PDF),
applied. It further took the view that disclosure would compromise
its ability to carry out investigations.
Bavarian Lager applied to the Court of First Instance for the
annulment of that decision.
The court ruled this month. It found that the list of
participants in the minutes contained personal data, "since the
persons who participated at that meeting can be identified in
them," it wrote.
"However, the mere fact that a document contains personal data
does not necessarily mean that the privacy or integrity of the
persons concerned is affected, even though professional activities
are not, in principle, excluded from the concept of 'private life'
within the meaning of Article 8 of the [European Convention on
Human Rights]", it said.
The court ruled that, in this case, disclosure of names of
representatives of a collective body was not capable of actually
and specifically affecting protection of the privacy and integrity
of the persons concerned. The mere presence of the name of the
person concerned in the list of participants at a meeting, under
the heading of the body which that person represented, does not
have that effect, and the protection of the privacy and integrity
of the persons concerned is not compromised, it said.
The court also said that, since the exception for protection of
the privacy and integrity of the persons concerned did not apply,
objection by those persons could not prevent disclosure. In those
circumstances, Bavarian Lager did not need to prove the need for
disclosure of the names.
The Court of First Instance agreed with Bavarian Lager and
annulled the Commission's decision. The Commission has two months
in which it can appeal the ruling to the European Court of
Justice.
