Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2024:165
Date: 2024-03-13
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment - decision unnecessary;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Belgium;Finland

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 March 2024 – ClientEarth and Leino-Sandberg v Council (Joined Cases T‑682/21 and T‑683/21) (1) ( Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Opinion of the Council’s legal service regarding a proposal by the Commission concerning an amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and regarding advice issued by the Aarhus Committee – Partial refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of legal advice – Legal opinions that are particularly sensitive in nature or have a particularly wide scope going beyond the context of the legislative process in question – Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process – Exception relating to the protection of the public interest regarding international relations – Overriding public interest ) 1. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of legal advice – Obligation on the institution to examine the nature of the measure as legal advice and the actual possibility of the protection of legal advice being undermined, and to verify the absence of an overriding public interest in disclosure – Disclosure of legal opinions concerning legislative processes – Obligation on the institution to state in detail its reasons for any decision refusing access (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), second indent) (see paragraphs 30-35) 2. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of legal advice – Concept of legal advice – Scope – Disclosure of legal opinions concerning legislative processes – Principle of transparency – Limits – Sensitive nature – Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), second indent) (see paragraphs 38-43, 48, 51-53, 58, 59, 64, 74) 3. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of the decision-making process – Protection of documents for internal use – Limits – Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(3), first subpara.) (see paragraphs 93-96) 4. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of the public interest – International relations – Refusal to grant access – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Demonstration of the existence of a reasonably foreseeable and not merely hypothetical risk of undermining a protected interest – Judicial review (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(a), third indent) (see paragraphs 108-118) Operative part The Court: 1. Annuls the decisions contained in the letters with references SGS 21/2869 and SGS 21/2870 of the Council of the European Union of 9 August 2021 refusing access in part to Document 8721/21 by ClientEarth AISBL and by Ms Päivi Leino-Sandberg; 2. Orders the Council to pay the costs. 1 OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.