Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), second indent)

2. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), second indent)

3. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), second indent)

Summary

1. As regards the exception relating to legal advice laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, the institution which is asked to disclose a document must satisfy itself that the document does indeed relate to legal advice and, if so, it must decide which parts of it are actually concerned and may, therefore, be covered by that exception.

The fact that a document is headed ‘legal advice/opinion’ does not mean that it is automatically entitled to the protection of legal advice ensured by the second indent of Article 4(2). Over and above the way a document is described, it is for the institution to satisfy itself that that document does indeed concern such advice.

(see paras 37-39)

2. In so far as neither Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents nor its travaux préparatoires throw any light on the meaning of ‘protection’ of legal advice, that term must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part. Consequently, the exception relating to legal advice laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of that regulation must be construed as aiming to protect an institution’s interest in seeking legal advice and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive advice.

The risk of that interest being undermined must, in order to be capable of being relied on, be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical.

In that regard, to submit, in a general and abstract way, that there is a risk that disclosure of legal advice relating to legislative processes may give rise to doubts regarding the lawfulness of legislative acts does not suffice to establish that the protection of legal advice will be undermined for the purposes of that provision and cannot, accordingly, provide a basis for a refusal to disclose such advice. It is precisely openness in this regard that contributes to conferring greater legitimacy on the institutions in the eyes of European citizens and increasing their confidence in them by allowing divergences between various points of view to be openly debated. It is in fact rather a lack of information and debate which is capable of giving rise to doubts in the minds of citizens, not only as regards the lawfulness of an isolated act, but also as regards the legitimacy of the decision-making process as a whole. Furthermore, the risk that doubts might be engendered in the minds of European citizens as regards the lawfulness of an act adopted by the Community legislature because the Council’s legal service had given an unfavourable opinion would more often than not fail to arise if the statement of reasons for that act was reinforced, so as to make it apparent why that unfavourable opinion was not followed.

(see paras 41-43, 59-61)

3. In applying the exception relating to legal advice laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, it is incumbent on the institution to which the request for disclosure is addressed to ascertain, if it takes the view that disclosure would undermine the protection of legal advice, whether there is any overriding public interest justifying disclosure despite the fact that its ability to seek legal advice and receive frank, objective and comprehensive advice would thereby be undermined.

In that respect, it is for the that institution to balance the particular interest to be protected by non-disclosure of the document concerned against, inter alia, the public interest in the document being made accessible in the light of the advantages stemming, as noted in recital 2 of the preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001, from increased openness, in that this 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.

Those considerations are clearly of particular relevance where the Council is acting in its legislative capacity, as is apparent from recital 6 of the preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001, according to which wider access must be granted to documents in precisely such cases. Openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinize all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act. The possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights.

Consequently, Regulation No 1049/2001 imposes, in principle, an obligation to disclose the opinions of the Council’s legal service relating to a legislative process. That finding does not preclude a refusal, on account of the protection of legal advice, to disclose a specific legal opinion, given in the context of a legislative process, but being of a particularly sensitive nature or having a particularly wide scope that goes beyond the legislative process in question. In such a case, it is incumbent on the institution concerned to give a detailed statement of reasons for such a refusal.

(see paras 44-46, 68-69)