This blog is hosted on Ideas on EuropeIdeas on Europe Avatar


Leaking and leak prevention in the European Commission


UPDATE (15 December 2017): The European Ombudsman has concluded that the European Commission did not provide me with sufficient access to documents in my research on EU leaks. The full case assessment by the Ombudsman is published here. The Commission now has time until March to reassess my requests for access.


Today, my new article on leaking and leak prevention in the European Commission (open access) has been published in West European Politics. This is follow-up research to my doctoral thesis (2014) on how leaked Commission documents on the reform of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy circulated in networks of EU lobbyists – at the time I found that only few actors got leaks from the Commission directly but through much wider networks – and my more general work on EU leaks.

Presenting these issues at a workshop last year inspired my colleagues to ask what the Commission does to actually prevent leaking, and so I started a new research process the result of which are out now in the article linked above.

Findings of the article

The core findings of my new article are simple: there’s quite some talk at the top of the Commission – in the weekly College,  Chefs de Cabinet and Directors-General meetings – that leaks are bad and that something needs to be done, but the cases that are talked about at the top don’t seem to end up being sanctioned. Also, despite the  talk there seem to be only few investigations on leaking of sensitive documents in recent years, and little follow-up from past discussions in future meetings.

In academic literature, this “decoupling” between talk and action is called organised hypocrisy, and the European Commission seems to use  decoupling to balance between the conflicting values of  secrecy and transparency that are inbuilt into EU policy-making.

In more simple terms: talking about how bad leaks are and not doing much about them may seem hypocritical, but in the end it’s “just” a way through which the Commission (and other public administrations) deal with competing interests in controlling information on one side and in gaining support for their work, internally and externally, on the other.

FIGURE1_WEP_LeakDiscusssionsFINAL FIGURE2_WEP_LeakInvestigationsFinal

But instead of repeating in more detail what’s already in the paper – Figure 1 and Figure 2 of the article with key data are above – and what I have already published for an earlier version of my paper (see previous blog post), I want to use this blog post for two more things.

Research transparency: publishing all material used

First, I want to use it to make my research process for this largely qualitative research public. Research transparency is a key issue these days, and even more so in  research that uses interpretations from non-public documents instead of quantitative arguments from publicly-available datasets.

This is why most of the internal documents received from the Commission (and also those downloaded from the Commission website) and analysed for my paper are uploaded to an online drive with the following folders:

The folder containing the Commission College meetings also contains my collection of leak-related quotes from the meeting protocols that I considered relevant and used for the analysis in the paper. The folder on Security Investigations is empty because the Commission so far refuses to give access to the respective documents; but in its reply to refusing access it at least disclosed what kind of documents exist and that there were only six such investigations in March 2015- March 2017.

Based on all these documents you can replicate most of my analysis, contradict my findings, or find new material that adds to what I found. If something that you want is missing, I can add that by making photos/scans as some stuff only exists on paper.

How to do (EU) secrecy research?

This brings me to the second thing I wanted to discuss: How to do empirical research on matters of secrecy in EU affairs? It’s a question that I’m not alone to ask, but since starting my first EU blog in 2008 and sind my PhD research in 2009 I’ve been wondering what could be the most effective way of bringing light into matters of secretive information flows.

The paper published today has a simple approach: take what is already public for a decade (e.g. College meeting protocols), and then start digging deeper systematically by making freedom of information (FOI) requests, in my case asking first for IDOC reports (where I knew they would be released from past FOI requests) and seconf for those parts of the protocols of Chefs de Cabinet and Directors-General meetings dealing with leaks (where I did not know what I would get).

When the Commission refused access, I went for confirmatory applications. Where the Commission still refused, I went to the European Ombudsman. She has been very helpful, but I’m still waiting for documents I hope to analyse for this paper. Let’s see how much I get…

So this takes a lot of time, but it’s often worth waiting. Cracking secrecy through empirical research needs persistence. Because even if what you find is not revolutionary, it opens doors to new stories.

One of the stories that I could not pursue for the paper because I received some of the documents very late from the Commission (but thanks to the European Ombudsman I still got them just in time to correct an earlier version of my paper) is, for example, that the Chefs de Cabinet protocol of their meeting from 17 September 2012 speaks about a “working breakfast” of the Chefs de Cabinet of 21 September 2012 at which leaking was supposed to be discussed. What was discussed and whether this is documented anywhere is unclear.

However, what it shows is that matters of secrecy are organised in layers. Below the layer of Chefs de Cabinets official meetings, for which it took over half a year to get documents, there is a lay of semi-informal meetings such as working breakfasts, informal seminars etc. There may still be records of these meetings somewhere, but finding out who will have those records is already a challenge; getting them may be even more challenging.

This means that, at some point, empirical EU secrecy-research has to resort to interviews with key informants. If you are lucky, you may get access to these people – such as past Chefs de Cabinet who were part of a working breakfast – who then can report from their memories what happened, but this will be years in the past and you’ll have to face serious recall bias.

Which  makes, in my view, the hunt for documents still one of the most important parts of secrecy research, because they may document details that 2-3 years later will be forgotten even by key actors involved (try to remember details of what you did at a meeting three years ago…).

And it makes sharing those documents in a wider research community important, because it means we as researchers do not have to start from zero each time but each new generation of secrecy researchers can dig deeper and bring more light, layer by layer.

Overall, I hope that my open-access article on leak prevention in the Commission and the material I share can encourage you to dig deeper, at EU-level or in comparative leak research at national level. Leaking is a key aspect of bureaucratic and political life at the frontline between transparency and secrecy, but understanding leaks and leaking requires time and data collection methods that actually get you from layer to layer of secrecy. Comparative or even quantitative analysis may require even more time, more persistence, and cooperation among many researchers (and eventually generations).

Comments Off on Leaking and leak prevention in the European Commission

Recent Articles

Freedom of information in international organizations

Published on by | Comments Off on Freedom of information in international organizations

One year ago, I sent an email to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye (@davidkaye), in reaction to a public consultation, not knowing whether it mattered. Now that his report on “Access to Information in International Organizations” is published, I realized that I was one […]

Why the EU should start contingency-planning for Brexit budget cuts

Published on by | Comments Off on Why the EU should start contingency-planning for Brexit budget cuts

I’ve just read Jon Worth’s blog post about why he’s calm about the start of the Article 50 negotiations that will most likely lead to Brexit, even if these negotiations are heading to a fight. After spending the best of my last three years researching budgeting in international organisations, including the effects of budget cuts […]

UN budgets for 2018-19 : tracing decision-making across the UN system [regularly updated]

Published on by | Comments Off on UN budgets for 2018-19 : tracing decision-making across the UN system [regularly updated]

In our research on UN budgeting (results and early insights published for example here, here, here), we follow budget procedures throughout the UN system, in particular in the UN proper and in the Specialised Agencies of the UN. This post collects the most relevant documents, in particular UN system budget outlines, proposals, and final budgets adopted. The […]

(UPDATED) Consequences of the Trump budget cuts for the United Nations

Published on by | Comments Off on (UPDATED) Consequences of the Trump budget cuts for the United Nations

Today, the scale of the budget cuts of the Trump administration to the United Nations system has been officially announced; and this could be massive. According to various reports – Foreign Policy, Washington Post, IRIN News (great visuals!), CBS News, UN Dispatch, PassBlue, Al Jazeera  – up to 37% of the current US contributions to the UN cut be […]

The President’s joke: Bill Clinton shouts ‘Fire’ at the United Nations

Published on by | Comments Off on The President’s joke: Bill Clinton shouts ‘Fire’ at the United Nations

Last year, I spent some days in the UN archives in New York to find out more about the topic of my current research on budgeting in the United Nations. As I am going through the material (hundreds of photos of archive documents), I stumbled over a document that is only incidentally relevant to my research: […]

Leaking in the European Commission: Is it in its DNA?

Published on by | Comments Off on Leaking in the European Commission: Is it in its DNA?

For a paper (SocArXiv preprint version) I am writing in the context of my research on EU leaks, I looked at all disciplinary proceedings against leakers in the European Commission from 2006 to 2015, as documented in the annual reports of the IODC, its internal investigation office. Here’s the data that I extracted from IODC’s annual […]

Political Science in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Published on by | Comments Off on Political Science in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Political science, probably like many other social sciences, seems stuck in an age that many of our students have never lived, and will never live. Our students live in an age of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and of problems that are far beyond local borders in a world dominated by thinking within borders. In this age, it is […]

The budget of the United Nations (UN) system: latest figures and research

Published on by | Comments Off on The budget of the United Nations (UN) system: latest figures and research

— For my ongoing coverage of the budget procedures in the UN system for  2018-19 (or 2018-21), please follow the link. — Finding reliable figures on the budgets and finances of the United Nations (UN) system is not easy, unless you know where to look for them. I’ll try to present some of this below and […]

EU leaks are back on the agenda – also in the Council

Published on by | Comments Off on EU leaks are back on the agenda – also in the Council

Yesterday, I was working on a new academic paper on how to do research on EU leaks. And then first the Greens presented their EUleaks platform and later EurActiv published this article about the new Commission anti-leak strategy. So below I publish an internal  Council document with its measures to prevent leaks. My interest on EU leaks […]

European Studies Summer School 2016: what is Brussels talking about this year?

Published on by | Comments Off on European Studies Summer School 2016: what is Brussels talking about this year?

From Thursday, I will again teach a 2-week European Studies intensive course here in Munich, with students from China, South Korea, Jordan, India, Canada and different EU countries. When I taught the course for the first time in 2014, I was just back from living in Brussels where I had worked for the EU Office […]

UACES and Ideas on Europe do not take responsibility for opinions expressed in articles on blogs hosted on Ideas on Europe. All opinions are those of the contributing authors.