Ministry sweep from the frying pan

statement

AMSTERDAM COURT
Administrative law case number: AMS 21/3992 WOB ruling of the multiple chamber of 24 August 2023 in the case between
B.R. van Beek, in Amsterdam, plaintiff, and
xxx xx and mr. xx
the State Secretary for Finance, defendant (Agents: mr.
Process progress
By decisions of I I December 2020 and 18 January 2021 (sub-decisions I I and 22), the defendant partially granted the plaintiff's request for the disclosure of documents under the Wob3.
By decision of 18 June 2002 1 (the contested decision), the defendant declared the plaintiff's objections to these two sub-decisions unfounded.
The plaintiff appealed against the contested decision. Respondent filed a statement of defence.
The hearing was investigated on July 7, 2022. The plaintiff appeared. Respondent was represented by his agents.
The court reopened the investigation by decision of 22 July 2022. The defendant was twice given the opportunity to (after all) provide the documents in an orderly manner. Subsequently, the court closed the investigation.
Considerations
l. The applicable legal framework is contained in a separate annex that forms part of this ruling.
2. The plaintiff's WOB request concerns — in short — all documents relating to the Advisory Committee on Implementation of Allowances, also known as the Donner Committee.

This sub-decision contains three annexes. Annex A concerns the legal framework. Annex B an inventory list containing 766 documents (hereinafter Annex B l) and an inventory list containing 427 documents (hereinafter Annex B2) and Annex C, the lacquered documents.
This sub-decision contains three annexes. Annex A concerns the legal framework. Appendix B: an inventory list containing 121 documents and Appendix C, the lacquered documents. 3 Public Administration Act.

The defendant has made some of the documents public. The other part of the documents was refused disclosure in whole or in part, citing various grounds for refusal in the Wob.
3. Respondent made two partial decisions. The first partial decision concerned documents that went directly from the defendant to the Donner Committee, including documents about the establishment of the committee. The second part decision concerns what has been deported to persons within the defendant's Department to answer the Donner committee's questions. The court will first address a number of more general points below. The court will then assess the partially disclosed documents on the basis of the defendant's grounds for refusal. Thereafter, the court will review the completely refused documents.
The general grounds for appeal
4.1 The plaintiff first argued that the completely refused documents could also be submitted in their fully lacquered version. The plaintiff has an interest in this because page numbers or data from documents can also be relevant to his journalistic work, for example when establishing a timeline. The court does not follow the plaintiff in this regard. The defendant is not obliged to provide documents that, after applying the grounds for refusal, contain only standard information that lacks any independent meaning. The court refers to the Division's settled case law on this subject.
4.2 The plaintiff also argued that the defendant should have seen whether, despite the application of the grounds for refusal, the request could have been met in another way. This professional ground also fails. The defendant is not obliged to do anything other than to review the documents for the possible application of grounds for refusal. Under certain circumstances, the defendant may choose, for example, to provide summaries of documents, but that is an authority on the defendant's side, not a legally enforceable duty. In addition, the defendant has rightly argued that many efforts have already been made to make this matter more public. After all, many documents that were previously refused under Article I I of the Wob were still made public.
4.3 In addition, the plaintiff has argued that the defendant's search is insufficient with regard to the documents concerning Donner's appointment as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Implementation of Allowances. The defendant only submitted a profile. This appeal is successful. The court considers it likely that there are more documents about the appointment of the chairman of such an important committee than just a profile. Not a single document has been submitted about the creation of the profile, the possible candidates found who meet the profile, the (considerations for) the final choice for Donner. The defendant's mere denial that such documents exist is insufficient in this light. The same applies to the comment at the hearing by the defendant's agent that it is not inconceivable.

is that there has only been telephone contact about this. After all, should that be the case, it is obvious that these contacts would have been recorded in telephone notes. Indeed, phone notes can be found in the documents on other topics. The plaintiff has therefore made it plausible that documents are missing and owned by the defendant. The decision has not been carefully prepared for this part and is not sufficiently motivated.
With regard to Part Decision I
The partially public documents
5. Pursuant to article 8:29 of the Awb, the court has taken note of the documents submitted by the defendant, including the unvarnished versions whose disclosure was refused in whole or in part.
6. I The court reviewed all documents underlying the ground for refusal under Article 10, paragraph 2, introductory words and point d, of the Wob. These are documents 34 and 500 of Annex BI to Part Decision I and documents 143, 238, 241, 389, 399 and 401 of Annex B2 to Part Decision l. In the court's opinion, the defendant was allowed to refuse to disclose the lacquered passages of document 500 of Annex BI to Part Decision I and document 238 of Annex B2 to Part Decision I on this ground. The defendant may override the interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information contained therein than the public interest in disclosing this information.
6.2 However, in the court's opinion, this does not apply to the other documents. The defendant was not reasonably able to refuse to disclose the lacquered passages of documents 34 of Annex BI to Part Decision I and 143 of Annex B2 to Part Decision I under Article 10, paragraph 2, introductory words and point d, of the Wob. The importance of inspection, control and supervision by governing bodies is not infringed by the disclosure of the general principles set out in these passages. For the other documents (241, 389, 399 and 401 of Annex B2 to partial decision l), in the court's opinion, the defendant - even in view of the current social importance of the benefits affair - could not reasonably attach more weight to the importance of inspection, control and supervision by administrative bodies than to the public interest in disclosing this information. The decision has not been carefully prepared for this part and is not sufficiently motivated. The defendant was allowed to refuse the disclosure of the passages of the aforementioned documents refused under Article 10 (2), introductory words and point e, of the Wob because respect for privacy requires this.
7. The court also assessed all documents underlying the ground for refusal under Article 10, paragraph 2, introductory words and point g, of the Wob. This mainly concerns names and other similar data of companies, institutions and individuals. This is not the information that the plaintiff — according to his own statements — is interested in. The court also sees no evidence of the plaintiff's suspicion that this ground for refusal was used as a replacement for the ground for refusal in Article I I of the Wob. The defendant was therefore able to reasonably refuse to disclose these passages.

The completely rejected documents
8. The court subsequently reviewed the documents whose disclosure was refused in their entirety. The court will first address the completely refused documents in partial decision l by ground for refusal. In view of the large number of documents, the court has chosen to make a selection of the documents to be reviewed, spread over the various grounds for refusal. In the court's opinion, this provides a sufficiently clear picture of how the defendant generally dealt with these grounds for refusal in the other documents. The court will then address partial decision 2.
9. First, the court in Annex BI to Part Decision I randomly reviewed a number of documents. These are documents 9, 23, 1 15, 215, 339, 562 and 680. The inventory list does not mention any grounds for refusal in documents 9, 23 and 1 15. The documents themselves do not show why disclosure of these documents should be refused. No passages have been painted and there is also no reference to a ground for refusal. For that reason alone, it is impossible to see why the disclosure of these documents should be completely refused. This is all the more true for document 23, now that it supplements the documents to prepare for an accountability debate. At first glance, this seems to be many documents that are already public, so that a complete refusal to disclose does not seem obvious anyway. Document 215 was rejected in its entirety with reference to article I l, paragraph 1, of the Wob. This concerns advice from the State Attorney on the benefits issue. Such advice, containing views, proposals, or recommendations on a policy issue, falls under the scope of this article. The fact that the State Attorney is a third party does not matter. In the court's opinion, the document also contains personal policy views for internal deliberation. The defendant therefore rightly refused to disclose this. The inventory list also does not mention a ground for refusal with the other documents. The documents themselves show that certain short passages are painted on the e-basis of article 10 of the Wob (documents 339 and 562) or on the e- and g-grounds (document 680). In the court's opinion, the defendant was able to refuse disclosure of the lacquered passages, but here, too, it did not appear why disclosure of the rest of these documents should be refused. The decision was also not sufficiently carefully prepared and not sufficiently motivated for this part.
10. Furthermore, according to Annex B2 to Part Decision I, a number of documents were completely refused, relying solely on Article 10, paragraph 1, introductory words and point e, of the Wob. The court reviewed a selection of the documents, namely documents 2, 35, 86, 1 07 and 423. In the court's opinion, the defendant was able to reasonably refuse document 2 invoking this ground for refusal. These are e-mails with personal details that can be traced back to individuals. However, the defendant has not been able to make it clear why the same would apply to document 35. The defendant has not substantiated why the information in this document would be traceable to individuals and would therefore infringe the privacy that this ground for refusal seeks to protect. With regard to the other three documents, they contain certain - very short - passages that the defendant could reasonably refuse to disclose on the e-ground. However, the defendant has not motivated why the documents should not otherwise be made public. The decision is on this

part insufficiently carefully prepared and insufficiently motivated.
l l l. The defendant also completely refused to disclose a number of documents in Annex B2 to partial decision I with a reference to article 10, paragraph 2, introductory words and point e, of the Wob, but without the inventory list stating that this is the only reason for complete refusal. The court looked at documents 55 and 64, which is the same as previously ruled. The documents contain limited passages that have been lacquered with reference to this ground for refusal. The defendant was reasonably allowed to refuse to disclose those passages. However, there is no justification why these documents should otherwise be refused. This part also involves careless preparation and an unsustainable justification.
12 Furthermore, according to Annex B2 to Part Decision I, a number of documents were completely refused without the inventory list mentioning any grounds for refusal. In this context, the court reviewed documents 18, 19, 21, 22, 124, 166, 210 and 235. In documents 18, 19, 21, 22 and 124, limited passages are included on the e- and g-grounds of article 10, paragraph 2, of the Wob. In the court's opinion, the defendant was able to reasonably omit the disclosure of these passages. However, the defendant has not motivated why the rest of these documents should not be made public. The same applies to documents 166 and 235, where certain passages are lacquered on the e-ground, and to document 2 1 0, where passages are lacquered on the e-ground and under article I I of the Wob. In the court's opinion, the defendant could refuse disclosure of the lacquered passages. However, there is no reason why the rest of these documents should not be made public either. With regard to document 20, not only does the inventory list not mention a ground for refusal, but also the document itself. There is also no other way to tell why this document was refused. On these parts, the decision was not carefully prepared and not sufficiently motivated.
13. The defendant also completely refused document 56 of Annex B2 to Part Decision I under Article 10, paragraph 2, introductory words and point g, of the Wob. When reviewing this document, it appeared that limited passages were painted on the e-ground and the d-ground of article 10, paragraph 2, of the Wob. The defendant was able to reasonably refuse to disclose the passages on the basis of the e-ground. This does not apply to the passages that were refused on the ground, now that these passages do not relate to inspection, control or supervision by administrative bodies at all. It has not been stated why the disclosure of the rest of the document would be contrary to the Wob. In any case, the document does not show any interest in preventing disproportionate advantage or disadvantage, as referred to in article 10, paragraph 2, introductory words (g) of the NVoB. The decision was also not sufficiently carefully prepared and not sufficiently motivated for this part.
14. In addition, a number of documents are still missing. For example, the court was unable to find documents 147, 15 1 and 156 of Annex B2 to Part Decision I. This may partly be due to the fact that the inventory lists refer to each other, using the document numbers that are difficult to trace, instead of using the serial numbers. The absence of these documents makes it impossible for the court to verify that the grounds for refusal have been properly applied. The decision on this part is also not sufficiently careful.

prepared.
With regard to Part Decision 2
15. With Annex B to Part Decision 2, the defendant completely refused three documents (2, 5 and 8) under Article I l, paragraph 1, of the Wob. The court finds that document 2 has now been made public. The court also finds that documents 5 and 8 are concepts of documents that have now been made public. The court is of the opinion that the defendant could refuse to disclose these concepts on this ground for refusal. Document 7 was also refused in its entirety, but it did not mention a ground for refusal. That is careless and the defendant will still have to do that. In documents 9 to 121, the b-documents submitted by the defendant only state the title of the document and not whether or not it has not been made public in part and, if so, on what ground. In view of what has been considered below under 18, the court sees (no) reason to look at this further. Insofar as these documents have (partly) not been made public, this is careless and the defendant must still do so.
Conclusion and consequences
16. In view of what has been considered above under 6.2 and 9 to 15, the appeal is well founded and the court annuls the contested decision for violation of articles 3:2 and 7:12 of the Awb. The court sees no possibility to settle the case itself or otherwise reach a more final dispute resolution. In view of the many shortcomings found in decision-making, the defendant will have to review all documents again for the possible application of the various grounds for refusal. In addition, the defendant must indicate per passage whether there is a ground for refusal, and, if so, which. The court gives the defendant a period of ten weeks to do so.
17. Pursuant to article 8:55 d, paragraph 2, of the Awb and in accordance with national policy (published at www.rechtspraak.nl), the court determines that the defendant owes a penalty payment of €100 for each day that exceeds these terms, with a maximum of €15,000. In the court's opinion, this penalty payment is sufficient to encourage the defendant to decide quickly.
18. The court also considers the following. The court is aware that the number of requests under the Wob (now the W007) from the defendant — just like other administrative bodies — has increased significantly in recent years. In combination with the tight labor market, this makes quick and correct processing, especially larger disclosure requests, difficult. However, this does not alter the fact that an administrative body acting properly can be expected to submit the documents to the court in an orderly and readable manner. Despite several attempts to do so, the defendant failed to do so in this case. Initially, the defendant provided the lacquered and unpainted versions of the documents with inventory lists that did not match and also used three different types of identification numbers. After the court reopened the investigation, the defendant still provided the partially refused documents in an orderly manner on December 8, 2022. However, the defendant failed to submit the fully refused documents. After the court had pointed this out to the defendant,

-7 Open Government Act.

On 24 March 2023, the completely rejected documents were still submitted in an unpainted version, only again in a version with mismatched inventory lists and documents with non-consecutive numbers. This has led to a lot of delays in this case. Should the case occur again in court, the court instructs the defendant to provide inventory lists with serial numbers and then provide the documents themselves with those serial numbers. Furthermore, the court does not want references in one inventory list to another list, especially if this reference does not have the serial number of the relevant document on the other list.
19. Because the court declares the appeal well founded, the defendant must reimburse the plaintiff for the court fee paid by him.
20. There are no reimbursable costs.

Decision
The court:
- declares the appeal well founded;
- annuls the contested decision and instructs the defendant to take a new decision on the objection within ten weeks of the date of sending this judgment in accordance with this ruling;
- states that the defendant forfeits the plaintiff a penalty payment of €100 for each day by which he exceeds the said period, with a maximum of €15,000;
- instructs the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff for the court fee of €1 81, -.

mr. Y. Moussaoui, members. in the presence of L. Fernândez Ferreiro, clerk. The decision was pronounced publicly.
The clerk has no opportunity to sign.
Copy sent to parties on:
2 AUG 1, 2023
For a copy with the Registrar of the District Court of Administrative Law in Amsterdam
Legal remedy
This ruling can be appealed to the Division within six weeks of the date of its transmission. If an appeal has been lodged, the preliminary relief judge of the appeal court may be requested to take an interim injunction2.

Legal framework
Article 10 of the Wob:
The provision of information under this Act shall not be provided to the extent that:
a. could endanger the unity of the Crown;
b. could damage the security of the State;
c. concerns business and manufacturing data that has been confidentially communicated to the government by natural or legal persons;
d. concerns personal data as referred to in articles 9, 10 and 87 of the General Data Protection Regulation, unless the provision apparently does not infringe privacy.
2 The provision of information under this Act is also omitted insofar as its importance does not outweigh the following interests:
a. the relations of the Netherlands with other states and with international organizations;
b. the economic or financial interests of the State, other bodies governed by public law or the governing bodies referred to in article la (c) and (d):
c. the detection and prosecution of criminal offences;
d. inspection, control and supervision by administrative bodies;
e. respect for privacy;
f. the interest that the addressee has in being the first to know the information;
g. preventing disproportionate advantage or disadvantage against natural or legal persons involved in the matter or third parties.
Article I I of the Wob:
I In the event of a request for information from documents prepared for internal consideration, no information about personal policy views contained therein will be provided.
2 For the purpose of good and democratic governance, information can be provided about personal policy views in a form that cannot be traced back to individuals. If the person who expressed or believed these views has agreed, the information can be provided in a form that can be traced back to individuals.

decision

AMSTERDAM COURT
Administrative law case number: AMS 21/3992 WOB
decision to reopen the multiple chamber in the case between
B.R. van Beek, in Amsterdam, plaintiff, and
Department of Finance. Respondent
(Agents: mr. Brouwer and mr.
Decision
When preparing the ruling, it was found that the investigation in these proceedings was not complete. When looking at the underlying secret documents in this case, it turned out that there are several boxes with different inventory lists that do not match and also use three different types of identification numbers (document numbers, serial numbers and letter combinations) for documents.
The court orders that the investigation be reopened and instructs the defendant to submit the secret documents again, this time in the same order and with the same document and serial numbers used in the two public inventory lists in the public file.
This decision was made on July 22, 2022 by Mr. J.H. Broek, Chairman and Mr. H.B. van Gijn and Y. Moussaoui, members, in the presence of L. Fernândez Ferreiro as clerk.
the clerk is unable to sign the judgment
Copy sent to parties on:
the district's gri r > k > Administrative Law Sector
There is no independent appeal against this decision.