Statewatch
observatory on EU FOI case law
The EU Court System and Freedom of Information
Compiled by Steve Peers,
Professor of Law, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex
Background
The EU has two courts. The lower
court, the Court of First Instance, deals with cases where individuals
sue the EU institutions. Since most disputes over access to documents
involve disputes between the institutions denying access to documents
and individuals disputing legality of the decision, most of them
are before the Court of First Instance.
The second EU court is the European
Court of Justice. This Court hears appeals against the judgments
of the Court of First Instance (by individuals, the EU institutions
or Member States). It also hears cases where the EU institutions
sue each other and cases between the EU institutions and the
Member States, including for example cases where a Member State
sues to annul an act of the institutions. Also, it answers questions
about EU law referred from national courts. The European Court
of Justice is assisted by Advocate-Generals, who release a non-binding
but influential Opinion about how to decide each case before
the Court's judgment.
The Courts cannot order the EU
institutions to release documents. Instead, they have the more
limited power to annul an institution's refusal to release them.
This leaves the institution free to refuse the documents on other
grounds.
In addition to issuing full judgments,
the Courts can also issue orders, for example where an applicant
has requested emergency measures, where they believe a case is
inadmissible and so there is no need to rule on the merits of
the argument (because, for instance, the applicant is out of
time to sue), or where they are striking out a case because it
has been settled.
Judgments of the Court
of First Instance
1. Carvel v. Council Case
T-194/94 [1995] ECR II-2765
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: Denmark, Netherlands,
European Parliament (for the applicant)
Background of applicant: journalist for UK newspaper
Subject-matter: documents relating to Council meetings
Winner: the applicant
Appeal: none
Comment: This was the first case
decided on the issue of access to documents. It established the
principle that when an applicant requests a document covered
by the 'confidentiality' exception in the 1993 rules, the institution
has to balance its interest against the applicant's and cannot
refuse whole classes of documents automatically.
2. World Wildlife Fund v.
Commission Case T-105/95 [1997] ECR II-313
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: Sweden (for the
applicant); France, UK (for the Commission)
Background of applicant: environmental NGO
Subject-matter: documents relating to infringement proceedings
against a Member State for alleged breach of EC environmental
law, which the Commission discontinued
Winner: the applicant
Appeal: none
Comment: This was the first case
concerning the Commission and access to documents. It established
that the institutional rules on access were binding and could
be relied upon by individuals against them. It also clarified
the distinction between 'mandatory' and 'discretionary' refusals
under the 1993 Decisions, stating that an institution could invoke
a 'mandatory' and 'discretionary' exception simultaneously. Furthermore,
it introduced the principle that exceptions from the rules have
to be interpreted and applied strictly. Finally, it is the first
case to interpret the exception relating to 'inspections and
investigations, etc.'. The applicant won because the Commission
had not clearly explained how the documents fell into the exceptions
from access.
3. Interporc (I) v. Commission
Case T-124/96 [1998] ECR II-231
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: importer of goods from outside EC
Subject-matter: documents relating to Commission decision relevant
to imports
Winner: the applicant
Appeal: none
Comment: The Commission lost
this case because it had not explained how the documents in question
fell within the 'court proceedings' exception. This is the first
case in which the Court stated that applicants did not have to
show an interest to apply for documents.
4. Van der Wal v. Commission
Case T-83/96 [1998] ECR II-545
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenor: Netherlands (for
the applicant)
Background of applicant: Dutch competition lawyer
Subject-matter: documents sent from Commission to national court
in the context of competition law disputes
Winner: the Commission
Appeal: by Van der Wal and Netherlands (see Court of Justice
cases below)
Comment: The Court ruled that
the 'court proceedings' exception only covered documents drawn
up for the purposes of a specific case. However, the exception
also meant that national courts had autonomy as to whether to
release documents.
5. Svenska Journalistforbundet
v. Council Case T-174/95 [1998] ECR II-2289
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: Sweden, Denmark,
Netherlands (for the applicant); UK and France (for Council)
Background of applicant: Swedish journalists' association
Subject-matter: documents relating to negotiation of Europol
Winner: the applicant
Appeal: none
Comment: The Court ruled that
the 1993 rules applied to 'third pillar' (justice and home affairs)
documents. It also ruled again that an applicant did not have
to show an interest to apply for documents. Finally, it suggested
that the 'public security' exception cannot cover documents that
only relate to negotiations on legislative texts.
6. Rothmans v. Commission
Case T-188/97 [1999] ECR II-2463
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenor: Sweden (for the applicant)
Background of applicant: Dutch subsidiary of multinational tobacco
company
Subject-matter: documents in 'comitology committee' concerned
with tax matters
Winner: the applicant
Appeal: none
Comment: The Court ruled on the
first time on the 'authorship rule' in the 1993 rules, which
restricted their scope to documents 'authored by' the Commission
or Council. It found that this rule was an exception which had
to be interpreted and applied strictly. In this case, committees
established to advise the Commission on exercise of its powers
to implement legislation must be regarded as part of the Commission
for the purposes of the rules.
7. Hautala v. Council Case
T-14/98 [1999] ECR II-2489
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: Sweden, Finland
(for the applicant); UK, France (for the Council)
Background of applicant: Finnish Green MEP
Subject-matter: documents relating to Council guidelines on arms
exports to third countries
Winner: the applicant
Appeal: by Council (see Court of Justice cases below)
Comment: The Court ruled that
the 1993 rules applied to 'second pillar' (foreign policy) documents.
It also ruled that partial access to documents must be granted,
except where this would cause excessive work for an institution.
This case is the first one in which the Court interprets the
'international relations' exception. However, it ruled that where
foreign policy documents are at issue, the Court can only review
the Council's decision to see if it has breached procedural rules
or decided manifestly wrongly on the merits of the issue.
8. Bavarian Lager v. Commission
Case T-309/97 [1999] ECR II-3217
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenor: UK (for the Commission)
Background of applicant: German brewery wishing to sell its product
in UK
Subject-matter: documents relating to infringement procedure
against UK
Winner: the Commission
Appeal: none
Comment: The Court ruled that
a draft of a 'reasoned opinion' drawn up during an infringement
procedure fell within the scope of the exceptions for 'inspections,
investigations, etc.'. However, it expressly ruled that it was
not yet established that all documents relating to an infringement
procedure fell into the scope of this exception.
9. Interporc (II) v. Commission
Case T-92/98 [1999] ECR II-3521
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: importer of third-country goods
Subject-matter: documents relating to Commission decision on
imports
Winner: both parties in part
Appeal: by Interporc (Case C-41/00 P, pending)
Comment: The Court again intepreted
the 'court proceedings' exception, clarifying that in all cases,
it only covered documents drawn up for a specific court proceeding.
Applicants can use the rules on access in addition to the EU
courts' rules of procedure to obtain documents. However, the
rules do not extend to documents drawn up by third countries
or member States, and there is no 'higher rule of law' that obliges
the extension of the rules to such documents.
10. Kuijer (I) v. Council
Case T-188/98 [2000] ECR II-1959
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: Dutch academic and lawyer
Subject-matter: documents regarding asylum situation in third
countries
Winner: the applicant
Appeal: by Council (Case C-239/00 P, later withdrawn)
Comment: The Court ruled that
the Council had failed to consider partial access to the documents,
which in part potentially fell within the 'international relations'
exception. Also, some of the documents appeared to contain only
descriptions and factual findings, not really falling under the
exception. Finally, when deciding on the applicant's confirmatory
application for documents, the Council had failed to reply to
the arguments which the applicant made when he applied for them.
11. Denkavit v. Commission
Case T-20/99 [2000] ECR II-3011
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: Dutch agricultural company
Subject-matter: documents relating to Commission investigation
into animal health in Netherlands
Winner: the Commission
Appeal: none
Comment: The Court ruled that
the 'inspections, investigations, etc.' exception covered the
documents at issue. It also ruled that an institution may simultaneously
invoke more than one exception from the list of 'mandatory' exceptions.
12. JT Corporation v. Commission
Case T-123/99 [2000] ECR II-3269
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: UK importer of third-country products
Subject-matter: documents relating to Commission decision concerning
imports
Winner: both the applicant and the Commission (largely the applicant)
Appeal: none
Comment: The Court ruled that
the Commission had failed to consider partial access to the documents,
which in part potentially fell within the 'inspections, investigations,
etc.' exception. Also, some of the documents appeared to contain
only descriptions and factual findings, not really falling under
the exception. The 'authorship' rule was also applied again,
to exclude the application of the rules to documents authored
by Bangladesh authorities.
13. Mattila v. Commission
and Council Case T-304/99 [2001] ECR II-2265
Judgment: [not yet available
on this site]
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: Finnish individual
Subject-matter: documents relating to EU policy toward Russia
and Ukraine
Winner: the Commission and Council
Appeal: Judgment appealed by plaintiff (Case C-353/01 P, pending).
Comment: The Court ruled that
the 'international relations' exception covered the documents
at issue. It appears to limit the scope of its review in all
cases where the 'international relations' exception applied.
Also, it appeared to accept that in some cases an applicant has
no right to partial access, where the remaining document would
not be of any assistance.
14. BAT v Commission Case
T-111/00 [2001] ECR II-2997
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: UK tobacco company
Subject-matter: documents from Commission committee on excise
duties
Winner: the applicant
Appeal: no appeal
Comment: In this case, the Commission
was willing to grant partial access to minutes of its committee,
but not full access, on the grounds that full access would reveal
the position of the Member States on a disputed point concerning
taxation of tobacco. Therefore the exception for 'confidentiality
of the institutions' proceedings' was applicable. However, the
Court ruled for the first time that the private interest of an
applicant in obtaining particular documents has to be considered
if the institution is aware of it, and furthermore that when
discussions on a topic had concluded, the institution no longer
had any 'confidentiality' to protect.
15. Petrie v Commission Case
T-191/99 [2001] ECR II-3677
Judgment:
Court
of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: Foreign-language lecturers in Italy
Subject-matter: 'reasoned opinions' of the Commission sent to
Italy during infringement proceedings
Winner: the Commission
Appeal: no appeal
Comment: The Court ruled that
the exception for 'investigations' under the Commission's rules
covered reasoned opinions issued during infringement proceedings.
It also ruled that Article 1 EU and Article 255 EC had no direct
effect, and that Article 255 EC could not be used to interpret
the prior rules of the Commission because that Article had no
legal effect until new access rules had been adopted.
16. Kuijer (II) v. Council
Case T-211/00 [2002] ECR II-485
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: Dutch academic and lawyer
Subject-matter: documents regarding asylum situation in third
countries
Winner: the applicant
Appeal: no appeal
Comment: The Court ruled that
the Council had wrongly applied the 'international relations'
exception, by failing to consider the effect in practice of releasing
the relevant documents on the EU's relations with specific third
countries.
17. BAT v. Commission T-311/00
[2002] ECR II-2781
Judgment: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: tobacco company
Subject-matter: preparatory scientific documents drawn up in
the process of drafting proposed EC legislation on tobacco content
Winner: no need to adjudicate
Appeal: time for appeal still open
Comment:
Most of the requested documents were supplied by the Commission
during the proceedings. As a result there was no
need to rule in this case, although the Commission was ordered
to pay the plaintiff's costs and certain costs of the Court due
to its behaviour. The judgment makes clear that an institution's
assertion that requested documents do not exist can
be the subject of legal
challenge, although in such a case there is a presumption that
the institution's claim is correct.
18. Messina v. Commission
T-76/02 [2003] ECR II-3203
Judgment: Court
of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: law lecturer
Subject-matter: documents concerning state aids
Winner: the Commission
Appeal: no appeal
Comment: This was the first judgment concerning Regulation 1049/2001,
rather than the 1993 rules of the Council and Commission. The
dispute concerned Italian documents held by the Commission, and
the Italians disagreed with their
release. The Commission therefore referred to Article 4(5) of
the Regulation, allowing Member States to request that their
documents not be disclosed. The Court ruled that the Commission
had not committed a manifest error of assessment in agreeing
with the Italian request; it did not rule expressly that Member
State's 'requests' are in all cases binding on the EU institutions.
19. Co-Frutta v. Commission
T-47/01 [2003] ECR II-4441
Judgment: Court
of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: Italian banana importers
Subject-matter: documents concerning implementation of common
EU banana market
Winner: the Commission
Appeal: no appeal
Comment: This case is likely to be the last case concerning the
1993 rules of the Council and Commission. The issue was the definition
of the 'authorship' rule. The Court held that documents drawn
up in the context of the banana market were national documents,
not the Commission's documents, and so not covered by the rules.
It rejected the argument that documents drawn up by Member States
in the context of the Commission's decision-making constitute
an exception to the authorship rule.
20. Turco v. Council T-84/03
[2004] ECR II-4061
Judgment: Court
of First Instance
Intervenors: Sweden, Denmark,
Finland (for applicant); UK, Commission (for Council)
Background of applicant: MEP
Subject-matter: Council legal service advice
Winner: the Council
Appeal: appealed by Turco (Case C-52/05 P and Sweden (Case C-39/05
P)
Comment: The Court of First Instance
ruled for the first time on both the 'legal advice' exception
expressly set out in the 2001 Regulation, and on the 'public
interest override' that applies to a number of exceptions in
that Regulation. It interpreted the 'legal advice' exception
broadly and placed the burden of proof regarding the 'public
interest override' on applicants, ruling also that the override
could not be invoked in the general interest of transparency.
21. IFAW v. Commission
T-168/02 [2004] ECR II-4135
Judgment: Court
of First Instance
Intervenors: Netherlands, Sweden,
Denmark (for applicant); UK (for Commission)
Background of applicant: environmental NGO
Subject-matter: documents concerning declassification of protected
environmental site
Winner: the Commission
Appeal: appealed by Sweden (Case C-64/05 P)
Comment: The Court of First Instance
unambiguously interpreted Article 4(5) of the 2001 Regulation
to mean that Member States have a right to veto release of documents
'drawn up' by them.
22. Scippacercola v. Commission
T-187/03 [2005] ECR II-1029
Judgment: Court
of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: not known
Subject-matter: documents concerning cost-benefit analysis regarding
Athens airport
Winner: the Commission
Appeal: no appeal
Comment: The Court applied the
'Member State veto' rule, holding also that it applied to documents
drawn up on behalf of a Member State and precluded any partial
access.
23. Verein für Konsumenteninformation
v. Commission T-2/03 [2005] ECR II-1121
Judgment: Court
of First Instance
Intervenors: Bank für Arbeit
und Wirtschaft AG
Background of applicant: consumer protection NGO
Subject-matter: documents concerning competition decision
Winner: the applicant
Appeal: no appeal
Comment: The Court ruled that
the Commission had issued a blanket refusal concerning a large
file, without sufficiently reasoning its refusal as regards individual
documents.
24. Sison v Council T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03, [2005]
ECR II-1429
Judgment: Court
of First Instance (link)
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: alleged terrorist
Subject-matter: documents concerning the designation of a person
as a 'terrorist' by the EU
Winner: the Council
Appeal: by the applicant (Case C-266/05 P, pending)
Comment: This was the first time
that the Court ruled on the exceptions for documents concerning
'public security' and 'international relations' in the 2001 Regulation.
It applied a conservative interpretation of these exceptions
in order to justify refusal of access to the relevant documents.
25. Franchet and Byk v Commission
T-391/03 and T-70/04,
judgment of 6 July 2006
Judgment: Court
of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicants: staff members allegedly responsible
for irregularities concerning EC funds
Subject-matter: documents concerning investigations into the
alleged irregularities
Winner: both sides in part
Appeal: the time for appeal is still open
Comment: This was the first time
that the Court ruled on the exceptions for documents concerning
'court proceedings' and 'inspections, investigations and audits'
in the 2001 Regulation. It applied and further developed the
prior jurisprudence concerning these exceptions, and again interpreted
the 'public interest' override narrowly (as in the 'Turco' case).
Orders of the Court
of First Instance
1. Carvel v. Council Case
T-19/96 [1996] ECR II-1519
Order: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: see Case T-194/94
Subject-matter: see Case T-194/94
This order concerns a further
case against the Council brought by Mr. Carvel against the Council,
withdrawn after the Council supplied various documents.
2. Berge v. Commission Case
T-156/97 [1997] ECR II-2097
Order: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: German magazine editor
Subject-matter: documents relating to GM foods
This is an order withdrawing
the case after the Commission furnished the requested documents.
3. Carlsen v. Council Case
T-610/97 R [1998] ECR II-485
Order: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicants: Danish individuals
Subject-matter: Council legal service opinions relating to legality
of EC legislation adopted with the 'legal base' of Article 235
(now 308) EC
Winner: Council
Appeal: none
The applicants wished to receive
documents which they believed could assist them in a dispute
before the Danish courts on the constitutionality of Danish membership
of the EU. The President of the Court ruled that the mandatory
exceptions permitted in the 'public interest' were not exhaustive,
and that an exception for 'the stability of the Community legal
order', including legal advice given by the institutions, also
existed. The case was later withdrawn before judgment on the
merits.
4. Elder and Elder v. Commission
Case T-78/99 [1999] ECR II-Oct 13
Order: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicants: UK nationals
Subject-matter: documents relating to VAT committee
This case was discontinued after
the Commission issued a reply to the confirmatory application.
The Commission was obliged to pay the applicants' costs, but
the Court had to rule subsequently on the amount of costs when
they were disputed.
5. Elder and Elder v. Commission
Case T-178/99 [1999] ECR II-3509
Order: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicants: UK nationals
Subject-matter: documents relating to VAT committee
This case was discontinued after
developments in the dispute, as was the later Case T-356/99 brought
by the applicants.
6. Meyer v. Commission Case
T-106/99 [1999] ECR II-3273
Order: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: French farmer
Subject-matter: information relating to overseas association
Appeal: none
The Court ruled that the 1993
rules do not extend to documents published in the Official Journal.
Moreover, the applicant was to some extent requesting information
rather than documents, and the rules only apply to access to
documents.
7. Associazione delle cantine
sociali venete v. EP and Ombudsman Case T-103/99 [2000] ECR
II-4165
Order: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicants: Italian association
Subject-matter: documents relating to wine distillation
Appeal: none
The applicants were refused Commission
documents and took their complaint to the Ombudsman. They were
dissatisfied with later developments and so sued the EP and Ombudsman
for failure to act. The Court ruled that the case was inadmissible
because the Ombudsman was independent of the EP and had only
limited functions.
8. Elder and Elder v. Commission
Case T-36/00 [2001] ECR II-607
Order: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicants: UK nationals
Subject-matter: VAT committee documents
Appeal: none
The Court ordered the Commission
to disclose copies of the disputed documents to the Court. This
is the first such order, following amendments to the Court's
rules of procedure which allow it to see such such documents
while withholding them from the applicants.
* Note: this case was later withdrawn
(removed from the Court's register on 14 May 2001)
9. Pitsiorlas v. Council and
European Central Bank Case T-3/00 [2001] ECR II-717
Order: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: Greek doctoral student
Subject-matter: agreement between Central Banks
Appeal: by applicant: Case C-193/01 P, pending (OJ 2001 C 200/51)
The applicant had requested the
document from both institutions and was refused by both. By the
time the Bank refused the document, he was out of time to sue
the Council, and the Court refused to extend the normal vtime-limit.
So the case against the Council is inadmissible.
10. BAT v. Commission Case
T-111/00 [2001] ECR II-Feb 21
Order: Court of First Instance (in French)
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: tobacco company established in UK
Subject-matter: documents relating to excise tax
Appeal: none
The Court ordered the Commission
to disclose copies of the disputed documents to the Court.
11. BAT v. Commission
Case T-41/00 [2001] ECR II-1301
Order: Court of First Instance
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: tobacco company established in Netherlands
Subject-matter: documents relating to excise tax
Appeal: none
The application was dismissed
as inadmissible, on the grounds that the original applicant was
a separate company.
European Court of Justice
1. Netherlands
v. Council Case C-58/94 [1996] ECR I-2169
Judgment: European Court of Justice
Intervenors:
EP (for applicant); Commission, France (for Council)
Background: government outvoted as regards access issues
Subject-matter: validity of 1993 Council Decision on access to
documents, Code of Conduct on access to documents, clause in
Council rules of procedure
Winner: Council
Comment: The
Court ruled that at the time (before the Treaty of Amsterdam),
the EU institutions were entitled to govern citizens' right of
access to documents by means of their internal decision-making
rules, rather than by 'constitutional' legislation.
2. Van der
Wal and Netherlands v. Commission Joined Cases C-174/98 P
and C-189/98 P [2000] ECR I-1
Judgment: European Court of Justice
Opinion: Advocate General (link)
Intervenors:
none
Background of applicant: see Case T-83/96
Subject-matter: joined appeals from Court of First Instance judgment
in Case T-83/96
Winner: the applicant and the Netherlands
Comment: The
Court ruled that the Court of First Instance had interpreted
the 'court proceedings' exception too broadly in its judgment.
In particular, the exception did not allow national courts to
have full autonomy over the release of documents.
3. Hautala
v. Council Case C-353/99 P [2001] ECR I-9565
Judgment: European Court of Justice
Opinion: Advocate General
Intervenors:
Denmark, France, Finland, Sweden and UK (for applicant); Spain
(for Council)
Background of applicant: see Case T-14/98 above
Subject-matter: appeal by Council against judgment in Case T-14/98
above
Winner: the applicant, dismissing the Council's appeal
Comment: The
Court ruled that the rules aimed to give the widest possible
access to documents and that applications concerned applications
concerned access to information, not just documents. In that
light, the rules must be interpreted to permit partial access
to documents in all but exceptional cases.
4. Interporc
II v Commission Case C-41/00 P [2003] ECR I-2125
Judgment: European
Court of Justice
Opinion: Advocate
General (link)
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: see Case T-92/98 above
Subject-matter: appeal by Interporc against judgment in Case
T-92/98 above
Winner: the Commission, dismissing the appeal
Comment: The judgment ruled against the appeal, on the grounds
that there is no 'higher rule of law' that would invalidate the
'authorship rule' which limited the scope of the prior rules
on access to Council and Commission documents (before Regulation
1049/2001).
5. Pitsiorlas
v Council and ECB Case C-193/01 P, [2003] ECR I-4837
Judgment: European Court of Justice
Opinion: Advocate
General (link)
Intervenors:
none
Background of applicant: see Case T-3/00 above
Subject-matter: appeal by applicant against order in Case T-3/00
above
Winner: the applicant, winning the appeal
Comment: The judgment ruled for the appeal, on the grounds that
the applicant had good reason to bring proceedings
after the deadline against the two bodies, given the complications
of determining which was responsible for considering
the application.
6. Mattila
v Council and Commission Case C-353/01 P [2004] ECR I-1073
Judgment: European
Court of Justice
Opinion: Advocate
General
Intervenors: none
Background of applicant: see Case T-304/99 above
Subject-matter: appeal by Mattila against judgment in Case T-304/99
above
Winner: the applicant, succeeding on appeal
Comment: The judgment ruled for the appeal, on the grounds that
the Council and Commission had given insufficient reasons.
7. Sison v.
Council, Case C-266/05 P, opinion of 22 June 2006
Opinion: Advocate
General
(link)
Intervenors:
none
Background of applicant: see Case T-110/03, etc., above
Subject-matter: appeal by Sison against judgment in Case T-110/03,
etc. above
Winner: the Opinion suggests the defendant (the Council)
Comment: The
Opinion suggests an even more conservative interpretation of
the exceptions for 'international relations' and 'public security'.
