Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. European Communities – Institutions – Public right of access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(a))

2. European Communities – Institutions – Public right of access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(a); Council Regulation No 2580/2001)

3. European Communities – Institutions – Public right of access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 9(3))

Summary

1. The scope of the review of legality incumbent on the Community Courts under Article 230 EC can vary according to the matters under consideration. With regard to judicial review of compliance with the principle of proportionality, the Community legislature must be allowed a broad discretion in areas which involve political, economic and social choices on its part, and in which it is called upon to undertake complex assessments. The legality of a measure adopted in those fields can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue.

As regards the scope of the judicial review of the legality of a decision of the Council refusing public access to a document on the basis of one of the exceptions relating to the public interest provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, the Council must be recognised as enjoying a wide discretion for the purpose of determining whether the disclosure of documents relating to the fields covered by those exceptions could undermine the public interest. The Community Court’s review of the legality of such a decision must therefore be limited to verifying whether the procedural rules and the duty to state reasons have been complied with, whether the facts have been accurately stated, and whether there has been a manifest error of assessment or a misuse of powers.

(see paras 32-34)

2. The purpose of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents is to give the general public a right of access to documents of the institutions and not to lay down rules designed to protect the particular interest which a specific individual may have in gaining access to one of them. Moreover, it is clear from the wording of Article 4(1)(a) of that regulation that, as regards the exceptions to the right of access provided for by that provision, refusal of access by the institution is mandatory where disclosure of a document to the public would undermine the interests which that provision protects, without the need, in such a case and in contrast to the provisions, for example, of Article 4(2), to balance the requirements connected to the protection of those interests against those which stem from other interests. Consequently, the particular interest of an applicant in obtaining access to documents cannot be taken into account by the institution called upon to rule on the question whether the disclosure to the public of those documents would undermine the interests protected by that provision and to refuse, if that is the case, the access requested.

Even assuming that an applicant has the right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation made against him, which led to his inclusion on the list of persons whose funds and financial assets are to be frozen pursuant to Regulation No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and even if such right entails access to documents held by the Council, such a right cannot be exercised by having recourse to the mechanisms for public access to documents implemented by Regulation No 1049/2001.

(see paras 43, 46-48)

3. Article 9(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents requires the consent of the originating authority before sensitive documents are recorded in the register or released. That authority is thus entitled to require secrecy as regards even the existence of a sensitive document and also has the power to prevent disclosure of its own identity in the event that the existence of that document should become known. That conclusion, which is thus inevitable in the light of the wording of Article 9(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, is explicable in the light of the special nature of the documents covered by Article 9(1), the highly sensitive content of which justifies, as stated in the ninth recital in the preamble to that regulation, the requirement that they be given special treatment. That conclusion cannot therefore be held to be disproportionate on the ground that it may give rise, for an applicant refused access to a sensitive document, to additional difficulty, or indeed practical impossibility, in identifying the State of origin of that document.

(see paras 101-103)