ECJ: Highlights of the Access Info Europe judgment
01 March 2011
ECJ:
Highlights of the Access Info Europe judgment:
1. "
Openness makes it possible for citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and for the administration to enjoy greater legitimacy and to be more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system." (para 56 of the judgment)
The Council claimed that Statewatch's publication of the document
EU doc no: 16338/08 (pdf) had:
- seriously undermined the Council's decision-making procedures
- had led the Council to change it procedures so as not to record the Member State positions and
- disclosure lead to a "hostile media reception" or "sharp criticism on the part of the public"
The Court found that none of these allegations were substantiated - and observed on the third allegation that: "
it is in the nature of democratic debate that a proposal for amendment of a draft regulation, of general scope, binding in all of its elements and directly applicable in all the Member States, can be subject to both positive and negative comments on the part of the public and media."
2. The Court said that the arguments presented by the Council:
"
are not sufficiently substantiated to justify, in themselves, the refusal to disclose the identity of those responsible for the various proposals, who must, in a system based on the principle of democratic legitimacy, be publicly accountable for their actions. In that regard, it should be noted that public access to the entire content of Council documents – including, in the present case, the identity of those who made the various proposals – constitutes the principle, above all in the context of a procedure in which the institutions act in a legislative capacity .... If citizens are to be able to exercise their democratic rights, they must be in a position to follow in detail the decision-making process within the institutions taking part in the legislative procedures and to have access to all relevant information. Public opinion is perfectly capable of understanding that the author of a proposal is likely to amend its content subsequently." (Point 69: emphasis added)
Tony Bunyan, Statewatch Director, comments:
"
The case for the repeal of Article 4.3 of the Regulation on access to EU documents which allows the Council to routinely refuse access to documents "under discussion" on the grounds that to do so would "seriously undermine" the decision-making procedure could not be put better:
The Commission's recent proposal to amend the Regulation to reflect the changes in the Lisbon Treaty provides an excellent opportunity for the European Parliament to effect this judgment by getting rid of Article 4.3 and open up the Council's legislative role to public scrutiny and accountability"
See:
The case for the repeal of Article 4.3
For background documentation on the discussions to amend the Regulation see: Observatory:
the Regulation on access to EU documents: 2008 - 2011