Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 March 2024 –ClientEarthandLeino-Sandberg v Council (Joined Cases T‑682/21 and T‑683/21)
Grade B
mapped from publisher markup. A grade says how a document's structure was obtained, not how reliable the law is.
Not the law itself: Judgment
Address https://gelex.eu/eli/EU/judgment/62021TJ0682_INF@2024-03-13/en
1. EU institutionsRight of public access to documentsRegulation No 1049/2001Exceptions to the right of access to documentsProtection of legal adviceObligation on the institution to examine the nature of the measure as legal advice and the actual possibility of the protection of legal advice being undermined, and to verify the absence of an overriding public interest in disclosureDisclosure of legal opinions concerning legislative processesObligation on the institution to state in detail its reasons for any decision refusing access (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), second indent) (see paragraphs 30-35)
2. EU institutionsRight of public access to documentsRegulation No 1049/2001Exceptions to the right of access to documentsProtection of legal adviceConcept of legal adviceScopeDisclosure of legal opinions concerning legislative processesPrinciple of transparencyLimitsSensitive natureScope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), second indent) (see paragraphs 38-43, 48, 51-53, 58, 59, 64, 74)
3. EU institutionsRight of public access to documentsRegulation No 1049/2001Exceptions to the right of access to documentsProtection of the decision-making processProtection of documents for internal useLimitsOverriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(3), first subpara.) (see paragraphs 93-96)
4. EU institutionsRight of public access to documentsRegulation No 1049/2001Exceptions to the right of access to documentsProtection of the public interestInternational relationsRefusal to grant accessObligation to state reasonsScopeDemonstration of the existence of a reasonably foreseeable and not merely hypothetical risk of undermining a protected interestJudicial review (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(a), third indent) (see paragraphs 108-118)
Operative part The Court:
1. Annuls the decisions contained in the letters with references SGS 21/2869 and SGS 21/2870 of the Council of the European Union of 9 August 2021 refusing access in part to Document 8721/21 by ClientEarth AISBL and by Ms Päivi Leino-Sandberg;
2. Orders the Council to pay the costs.