# C_2009267EN.01008001.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/80 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 14 September 2009 — Jurašinović v Council

(Case T-359/09)

2009/C 267/142

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: A. Beguin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the express decision of 17 June 2009 and the subsequent implied decision by which the applicant was refused access to the following documents:
—
reports of observers of the European Union in Croatia on the Knin zone from 1 August to 31 August 1995; —
the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log Reports’; | — | reports of observers of the European Union in Croatia on the Knin zone from 1 August to 31 August 1995; | — | the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log Reports’; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------- |
| — | reports of observers of the European Union in Croatia on the Knin zone from 1 August to 31 August 1995; | | | | |
| — | the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log Reports’; | | | | |

| — | order the Council of the European Union — Secretariat-General to grant electronic access to the documents sought; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant EUR 2 000 exclusive of tax or EUR 2 392 inclusive of tax in procedural indemnity with interest, at the rate determined by the ECB in respect of the day the application was lodged. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the express decision of 17 June 2009 and the subsequent implied decision of the Council refusing him access to the reports of the European Union observers in Croatia on the Knin zone from 1 August to 31 August 1995 and to the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log Reports’.

The applicant raises two pleas in law in support of his action:

| — | disclosure would not undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations in accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001( 1 ) in so far as:
—
no specific legal protection may apply to the documents sought; and —
even supposing that specific protection may apply, half of the maximum period of protection laid down in Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001 has already passed, which justifies the grant of access to the documents sought; —
in addition, unless classed in a protective category, the documents in question do not fall within the category of sensitive documents within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001. | — | no specific legal protection may apply to the documents sought; and | — | even supposing that specific protection may apply, half of the maximum period of protection laid down in Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001 has already passed, which justifies the grant of access to the documents sought; | — | in addition, unless classed in a protective category, the documents in question do not fall within the category of sensitive documents within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001. |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | no specific legal protection may apply to the documents sought; and | | | | | | |
| — | even supposing that specific protection may apply, half of the maximum period of protection laid down in Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001 has already passed, which justifies the grant of access to the documents sought; | | | | | | |
| — | in addition, unless classed in a protective category, the documents in question do not fall within the category of sensitive documents within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001. | | | | | | |

| — | disclosure would not undermine the protection of court proceedings and legal advice in accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in so far as:
—
that exception concerns the protection of court proceedings of the European Union and of the Member States, whereas, in the present case, the Council justifies its refusal to grant access on the basis of court proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; —
the documents sought have already been sent to the parties in the Gotovina case before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which justifies also giving the applicant access to them; —
it is not the task of the Council to ensure that proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia run smoothly; and —
there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents sought. | — | that exception concerns the protection of court proceedings of the European Union and of the Member States, whereas, in the present case, the Council justifies its refusal to grant access on the basis of court proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; | — | the documents sought have already been sent to the parties in the Gotovina case before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which justifies also giving the applicant access to them; | — | it is not the task of the Council to ensure that proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia run smoothly; and | — | there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents sought. |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that exception concerns the protection of court proceedings of the European Union and of the Member States, whereas, in the present case, the Council justifies its refusal to grant access on the basis of court proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; | | | | | | | | |
| — | the documents sought have already been sent to the parties in the Gotovina case before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which justifies also giving the applicant access to them; | | | | | | | | |
| — | it is not the task of the Council to ensure that proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia run smoothly; and | | | | | | | | |
| — | there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents sought. | | | | | | | | |

---

( 1 )  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---