Partial access to an evaluation report
A fictional EU research agency receives an access request for a 40-page evaluation report. The agency's internal note states: 'Documents shall be released in full unless disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests. Where only part of a document is covered by an exception, the remaining parts shall be released.' The case handler writes: 'Because the report contains a supplier's cost breakdown on pages 12–14, the entire report must be withheld; partial release would create a misleading extract.' The legal adviser replies: 'The note does not permit blanket refusal where the exception is limited to specific pages; however, the agency may withhold those pages if no non-confidential summary can be produced without disproportionate effort. The applicant has not asked for a summary.' The head of unit must decide within 15 working days. The applicant is a journalist who has already threatened an appeal.
1. What is the strongest conclusion about the agency's obligation under the internal note?
Read the worked answer
The note requires partial release unless the exception covers the whole document or a non-confidential summary would require disproportionate effort. The case handler's blanket refusal is not supported: the commercial-interest exception is expressly limited to pages 12–14, and the note says the remaining parts shall be released. Withholding the entire report would be justified only if redaction left a misleading document and no summary was feasible. The applicant's failure to request a summary matters, but it does not convert a partial exception into a full refusal. The best conclusion is that the agency should release the non-excepted pages, or withhold only those pages after assessing whether a summary is feasible.
2. Identify the unstated assumption in the case handler's reasoning and explain why it matters.
Read the worked answer
The case handler assumes that releasing pages 1–11 and 15–40 would necessarily create a misleading extract. The note does not make 'misleading extract' an independent exception; it requires release of non-covered parts. If the remaining pages are intelligible without the cost breakdown, the assumption is false and the blanket refusal is disproportionate. It matters because the decision turns on evidence about the redacted report's readability, not on the mere presence of confidential pages. The handler should state what would be misleading and why a short explanatory note or summary could not cure it.
3. Which additional fact would most change the legal adviser's conclusion?
Read the worked answer
Whether a non-confidential summary of pages 12–14 can be produced without disproportionate effort. The adviser's position allows withholding the pages only if no such summary is feasible. If a two-page summary could be produced in a few hours, the agency should release the rest and provide the summary. If producing a reliable summary would require reconstructing the supplier's pricing model, the effort may be disproportionate. The applicant's request for a summary is not decisive, because the note refers to feasibility, not to whether the applicant asked. The head of unit should document the effort estimate before deciding.