Bayeux Tapestry: the Élysée writes (again) to La Tribune de l’Art

On 6 October, the Élysée was particularly busy with the resignation of Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu. Nevertheless, the secretary to the deputy chief of staff still found time to send us by email a second letter (after the first — see the article), dated 3 October, from the chief of staff. It is truly, once again, a great honour, and we are grateful for the time taken to reply to us while the fate of the country hangs in the balance!

Nevertheless, as with the first letter, let us admit that this one is hardly satisfactory — and even somewhat baroque.
We had asked, in fact, to receive two documents: the agreement authorising the loan of the Bayeux Tapestry between France and the United Kingdom, signed by the Minister of Culture Françoise Nyssen and her British counterpart in 2018 (ill. 2), and the agreement for the loan of the Bayeux Tapestry between France and the United Kingdom, signed by the Minister of Culture Rachida Dati and the Director of the British Museum [1], last July (ill. 3).
These two agreements had been signed publicly, in front of the cameras, as can be seen here for the first, and here for the second, the two signatories even showing it to the public, in the latter case.
It seems important to us — for many reasons — that these two texts be made public, particularly as they probably specify certain terms which deserve to be known.

But, as we were saying, the Élysée’s reply is rather surprising. It states that it does not have these two documents, as they were signed by the Ministers of Culture.
We must strongly doubt this claim — how can one believe that the presidency of the Republic, to which the Ministry of Culture was still recently referring all questions about the transfer of the Tapestry to London, does not have copies of these loan agreements? How can one imagine that the special advisor tasked with carrying out this transport, Philippe Bélaval — who, at the Élysée, reports directly to Emmanuel Macron — is not in possession of them?
That is, obviously, completely impossible.

The Élysée thus informs us that it has passed on our request “to the person responsible for access to administrative documents (PRADA) of that ministry” and that the ministry “will inform [us] directly of the outcome of [o]ur request.”
But the most amusing part comes right after. The letter continues, without transition:
“You have a period of two months from the notification of the administration’s explicit decision of refusal to refer the matter to the Commission for Access to Administrative Documents”
It goes on to explain the entire procedure for challenging a refusal of our request — right up to the administrative court.

The Élysée is therefore clearly telling us it does not have these documents (which is false) and — rather than refusing to give them to us (which would slightly undermine its supposedly renewed transparency in this matter) — says that it depends on the Ministry of Culture, which in any case will refuse us access.
This is, in fact, not very serious. How can one justify refusing to disclose documents that are not secret, that were signed in public, that formalise an administrative decision already taken, and that are therefore not preparatory in nature? In doing so, the Élysée informs us in this letter that it will not comply with Article L311-2 of the Code on Relations between the Public and the Administration.

For our part, we have directly requested these agreements from the communications department of the Ministry of Culture (the preferred contact point for journalists), but so far — despite our insistence — we have received no reply to this demand (although we have been told it was forwarded “to the relevant departments”).
We will of course report on the response once we receive it. And just as with the feasibility study, if these documents are refused to us, we will continue doing everything possible to obtain them.