Stop protecting lobbyists' identities The European Ombudsman recently condemned the Commission for 'maladministration' for blanking out individual lobbyists' names in documents released under EU access to document rules. This verdict reaffirms the EU citizens' right to access to information and supports efforts to improve EU lobbying transparency. But unfortunately, the Ombudsman's decision will have no immediate consequences, pending a ruling of the European Court of Justice in a related case on privacy protection versus access to documents. The Court ruling, which is expected in September, coincides with the European Commission's review of the existing rules for access to information. Whatever the outcome of the Court case, the Commission should use the review to improve its day to day transparency practices and bring them in line with the spirit of the European Transparency Initiative (ETI). The complaint against the Commission was brought before the Ombudsman by Corporate Europe Observatory, an Amsterdam-based lobby watchdog. Being able to identify individual lobbyists is a precondition for scrutinising the role of representatives of individual corporations lobbying the EU institutions. The complaint concerned the Commission's blanking out of names from documents relating to the lobbying activities of two large coalitions of firms: the European Services Forum and the Transatlantic Business Dialogue. Both lobby coalitions have a small secretariat, and a lot of the lobbying work is carried out by staff employed by individual member companies. It is highly relevant to know who is lobbying on behalf of these industry coalitions. Companies would otherwise be able to hide behind faceless industry associations. In his decision, the European Ombudsman rejected the Commission's defence of its practice of covering up individual corporate lobbyists. The Commission had argued that "disclosure of names of the individuals concerned could interfere with their private life, undermine their privacy and integrity and expose them to undue external pressure." But, according to the Ombudsman, the Commission did not explain how such infringements on the private life of lobbyists could happen; he also doubted if the names of lobbyists would be normally regarded as "personal" or "private". The Ombudsman also dismissed the Commission's claim that unblanking the names of the lobbyists in the released documents would bring "no added value from a transparency point of view". Referring to a background paper by the European Data Protection Supervisor on the tensions between transparency and privacy, the Ombudsman concluded that there is no basis for the Commission to invoke such a 'necessity test'. A similar refusal by the Commission to release names of individual lobbyists is at stake in the so-called Bavarian Lager case, now before the European Court of Justice. Both the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor support the claimant in this case, while the Commission defends a restricted form of transparency. The Commission's restrictive policy on releasing names of individual lobbyists is at full odds with the pro-transparency agenda of the European Transparency Initiative (ETI), one of the flagships of the Barroso Commission. Lobbying transparency is a key plank of the ETI, and Commissioner Kallas, who is driving it, has repeatedly stressed that citizens should be able to know who is lobbying on what issues and what interests are involved. Disclosure of names of individual lobbyists is already common practice in the European Parliament's on line register of accredited lobbyists, as well as in the lobbying registers in the United States and Canada. If the Court of Justice would decide that the Commission is justified in withholding the names of individual lobbyists, the European Parliament's register could even be challenged in court. After the publication of the Communication on the European Transparency Initiative, earlier this spring, for-profit lobbyist organisations SEAP and EPACA have been warning that they will advise their members not to join the register unless financial transparency requirements are toned down significantly. Clearly those lobbyists that want to stay in the shadows will not hesitate to invoke the insincere privacy protection argument in order to avoid registration. One can only hope that reason will prevail and that the European Court of Justice will decide in favour of the proponents of transparency, both inside and outside the Commission. But whatever the outcome, the review of EU access to information rules provides the Commission with an opportunity to drop its flawed interpretation of privacy protection and put the transparency ambitions of the ETI in practice. Erik Wesselius works with Corporate Europe Observatory