Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2013:325
Date: 2013-05-16
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Spain

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 17 October 2013 1. Institutions of the European Union — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, recital 11 and Art. 4) 2. Institutions of the European Union — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the decision-making process — Duty to balance relevant interests — Possibility to base decisions on general presumptions applying to certain categories of document — Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, recitals 2 and 6 and Art. 4) 3. Appeals — Grounds — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 29-31) 2. If an institution applies one of the exceptions to the right of access provided for in Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, it is for that institution to weigh the particular interest to be protected through non-disclosure of the document concerned against, inter alia, the public interest in the document being made accessible, having regard to the advantages of increased openness, as described in recital 2 to Regulation No 1049/2001, in that it enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system. In that regard, although, in order to justify refusing access to a document, it is not sufficient, in principle, for the document to fall within an activity or an interest referred to in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, as the institution concerned must also explain how access to that document could specifically and actually undermine the interest protected by an exception laid down in that provision, it is nevertheless open to that institution to base its decisions in that regard on general presumptions which apply to certain categories of document, as similar general considerations are likely to apply to requests for disclosure relating to documents of the same nature. While, in such a case, the institution concerned would not be under an obligation to carry out a specific assessment of the content of each of those documents, it must nevertheless specify on which general considerations it bases the presumption that disclosure of the documents would undermine one of the interests protected by the exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001. (see paras 32, 72-73) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 65)