European Union flags
Credit: By Thijs ter Haar on Flickr. Some rights reserved.

Twenty-nine journalists representing all European Union member states are suing the European Parliament after their requests to access information on how the 751 members of the European Parliament (MEPs) spend their allowances have been denied.

The initiative is called The MEPs Project, and its journalists filed the lawsuit with the European Court of Justice on 13 November, after their initial request in July and their appeal in August were both rejected.

The European Parliament refused to provide access to the documents requested, containing spending information for the previous four years, primarily arguing that the information qualifies as protected personal data under the law.

Anuška Delić, a journalist with Slovenian daily newspaper Delo and the leader of the project, said the institution also claimed it does not hold any documents showing how some parts of the MEP's general allowance is spent, and that fulfilling the journalists' requests would constitute an "excessive workload".

According to the European Parliament, 27 per cent or €474m (£332m) of the total €1,756b (£1,231b) budget was spent on MEP's expenses in 2014, where expenses included salaries, travel and office costs, and the pay of their personal assistants.

Members of The MEPs Project have asked for information concerning the MEP's general allowance, but not their private salaries and how these are spent.

In 2015, an individual's allowance amounted to €4,320 (£3,029) per month and MEPs also receive an additional daily subsistence allowance of €306 (£214), on condition that they prove their attendance to meetings and other parliamentary proceedings by signing a dedicated registry.

"We believe this is and should be public information and we are convinced that there is no possible way in which the European Parliament can audit these expenses or allowances the way journalists can," Delić told Journalism.co.uk.

She added that while the European Parliament might monitor the spending by reimbursing MEPs for their expenses once accurate receipts have been provided, the journalists' approach, in the public interest, would be different.

"We can judge and investigate the context of a travel expense, for example, we can analyse the data and draw possible connections or patterns.

"The European Parliament does an administrative verification, not a contextual one, and that can be just half of the story."

Nataša Pirc Musar, Slovenia’s former Information Commissioner and the legal representative of The MEPs Project, said the main claim the journalists are making is that there has to be a division between personal data and protected personal data under the law.

According to regulation (EC) number 45/2001 and directive 46/95 of the European Parliament, 'personal data' "shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person hereinafter referred to as ‘data subject’; an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his or her physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity".

However, Musar argued that the journalists are entitled to access this information because it "concerns public money and how it is being spent".

A similar case from 2005 saw Gert-Jan Dennekamp, a journalist from the Netherlands Broadcasting Association, request the names of the MEPs who were using the Parliament's additional pension scheme for members of the Parliament.

Dennekamp's requests were initially denied on the same ground, that this information was protected personal data, before a final decision from the European Court of Justice in July 2015 granted him access.

He sued the European Parliament arguing that access to this data was necessary in the interest of public transparency, as a significant part of this pension scheme was funded by the European Parliament and thus, using public money.

The MEPs Project draws inspiration from the work of journalist and author Heather Brooke, who played a crucial role in the 2009 parliamentary expenses scandal in the UK. Brooke's Freedom of Information requests finally revealed the misuse of allowances and expenses claimed by MPs, after several failed attempts by parliament to prevent their disclosure.

"The public part of our claim, the journalistic one, is not just to see whether this money is spent correctly and all the receipts are in order," Musar said.

"It is necessary for the public to receive this information in order to decide, for example, who to vote for in the European elections. People might not wish to vote for an MEP who is not active enough, who doesn't go out in the field or who doesn't organise round tables.

"I strongly believe that we do have a case and hopefully we will succeed, because it would be, without any doubt, a precedent case for the European Parliament."

Update: The article previously stated The MEPs Project appeal was rejected in September, rather than August.

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).