Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:30
Date: 2002-02-07
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Concepts: Contentious procedure;Linked institutions and bodies;Partial access;Protection of the public interest
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Council — Right of public access to Council documents — Decision 93/731 — 
Exceptions to the principle of access to documents — Protection of the public 
interest — Decisions refusing access taken by the Council on the basis of its political 
responsibilities — Judicial review — Scope — Limits 
(Council Decision 93/731, Art. 4(1)) 
II - 485 
SUMMARY — CASE T-211/00 
2. Council — Right of public access to Council documents — Decision 93/731 — 
Exceptions to the principle of access to documents — Protection of the public 
interest — Scope 
(Council Decision 93/731, Art. 4(1)) 
3. Council — Right of public access to Council documents — Decision 93/731 — 
Exceptions to the principle of access to documents — Partial access to data not 
covered by the exceptions — Limits 
(Council Decision 93/731, Art. 4(1)) 
1. When the Council decides whether the 
release of a document may undermine 
the public interest safeguarded by 
Article 4(1) of Decision 93/731 on 
public access to Council documents, it 
exercises a discretion which is among 
the political responsibilities conferred 
on it by provisions of the Treaties. In 
those circumstances, review by the 
Court of First Instance must be limited 
to verifying whether the procedural 
rules have been · complied with, the 
decision at issue is properly reasoned 
and the facts have been accurately 
stated, and whether there has been a 
manifest error of assessment of the 
facts or a misuse of powers. 
(see para. 53) 
2. The legal rule is that the public is to 
have access to the documents of the 
institutions and the power to refuse 
access is the exception. A decision 
denying access is valid only if it is 
based on one of the exceptions pro­
vided for in Article 4 of Decision 
93/731 on public access to Council 
documents. These exceptions must be 
construed and applied restrictively so 
as not to defeat the general principle 
enshrined in that decision. In that 
regard, the Council is obliged to con­
sider in respect of each document 
requested whether, in the light of the 
information available to it, disclosure 
is in fact likely to undermine one of the 
public interests protected by the excep­
tions provided for in Article 4(1) of 
Decision 93/731. If those exceptions 
are to apply, the risk of the public 
interest being undermined must there­
fore be reasonably foreseeable and not 
purely hypothetical. 
In such circumstances, the mere fact 
that certain documents contain infor­
mation or negative statements about 
the political situation, or the protection 
of human rights, in a third country 
does not necessarily mean that access 
to them may be denied on the basis that 
II - 486 
KUIJER v COUNCIL 
there is a risk that the public interest 
may be undermined and is not, in itself 
and in the abstract, a sufficient basis 
for refusing a request for access. 
Rather, refusal of access to the docu­
ments in question must be founded on 
an analysis of factors specific to the 
contents or the context of each docu­
ment, from which it can be concluded 
that, because of certain specific circum­
stances, disclosure of such a document 
would pose a danger to a particular 
public interest. 
(see paras 55-56, 60-61) 
3. The exceptions provided for in 
Article 4( 1 ) of Decision 93/73 1 on 
public access to Council documents 
must be interpreted in the light of the 
principle of the right to information 
and the principle of proportionality. 
Consequently, the Council must con­
sider whether it is appropriate to grant-
partial access, confined to material 
which is not covered by the exceptions. 
In exceptional cases, a derogation from 
the obligation to grant partial access 
might be permissible where the admin­
istrative burden of blanking out the 
parts that may not be disclosed proves 
to be particularly heavy, thereby 
exceeding the limits of what may 
reasonably be required. 
(sec para. 57) 
II - 487