# C_2010024EN.01005901.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/59 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Action brought on 19 November 2009 — Jurašinović v Council

(Case T-465/09)

2010/C 24/105

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: M. Jarry, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 22 September 2009 by which the applicant was granted only partial 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; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the Council of the European Union — Secretariat-General to grant electronic access to all parts of 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 decision of 22 September 2009 refusing to grant him full access to the reports of the European Union observers in Croatia on the Knin zone from 1 August to 31 August 1995.

The applicant raises three pleas 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) of Regulation No 1049/2001( 1 ) in so far as:
—
no specific legal protection may apply to the documents at issue; —
even supposing that specific protection may apply to the documents sought, Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides that ‘he exceptions as laid down in paragraphs 1 to 3 shall only apply for the period during which protection is justified on the basis of the content of the document.’ Half of the maximum period of protection laid down in Article 4(7) has already passed, which justifies the grant of access to the documents sought; —
finally, the documents sought are not sensitive documents within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001; | — | no specific legal protection may apply to the documents at issue; | — | even supposing that specific protection may apply to the documents sought, Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides that ‘he exceptions as laid down in paragraphs 1 to 3 shall only apply for the period during which protection is justified on the basis of the content of the document.’ Half of the maximum period of protection laid down in Article 4(7) has already passed, which justifies the grant of access to the documents sought; | — | finally, the documents sought are not sensitive documents within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | no specific legal protection may apply to the documents at issue; | | | | | | |
| — | even supposing that specific protection may apply to the documents sought, Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides that ‘he exceptions as laid down in paragraphs 1 to 3 shall only apply for the period during which protection is justified on the basis of the content of the document.’ Half of the maximum period of protection laid down in Article 4(7) has already passed, which justifies the grant of access to the documents sought; | | | | | | |
| — | finally, the documents sought are not sensitive documents within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001; | | | | | | |

| — | disclosure would not undermine public security in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1049/200 in so far as:
—
whether third parties have provided ‘confidential’ information for use in those documents is irrelevant, since Regulation No 1049/2001 does not allow an institution to refuse access to a document in order to protect a hypothetical ‘third party’; —
the Council’s argument that it seeks to ‘protect’ the physical well-being of observers, witnesses and other sources constitutes a desire to protect the private interests of those persons and does not affect public security; —
in order to reconcile its concern for the protection of the identity of certain persons with the need to satisfy the interest of the public, the Council is able, always, to limit public access to the documents sought by deleting from those documents references that would allow identification of those ‘third parties’; | — | whether third parties have provided ‘confidential’ information for use in those documents is irrelevant, since Regulation No 1049/2001 does not allow an institution to refuse access to a document in order to protect a hypothetical ‘third party’; | — | the Council’s argument that it seeks to ‘protect’ the physical well-being of observers, witnesses and other sources constitutes a desire to protect the private interests of those persons and does not affect public security; | — | in order to reconcile its concern for the protection of the identity of certain persons with the need to satisfy the interest of the public, the Council is able, always, to limit public access to the documents sought by deleting from those documents references that would allow identification of those ‘third parties’; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | whether third parties have provided ‘confidential’ information for use in those documents is irrelevant, since Regulation No 1049/2001 does not allow an institution to refuse access to a document in order to protect a hypothetical ‘third party’; | | | | | | |
| — | the Council’s argument that it seeks to ‘protect’ the physical well-being of observers, witnesses and other sources constitutes a desire to protect the private interests of those persons and does not affect public security; | | | | | | |
| — | in order to reconcile its concern for the protection of the identity of certain persons with the need to satisfy the interest of the public, the Council is able, always, to limit public access to the documents sought by deleting from those documents references that would allow identification of those ‘third parties’; | | | | | | |

| — | the documents sought have previously been disclosed. |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------- |

---

( 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)

---