Luxembourg, 28/02/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 28 February the Court of First Instance heard a plea in the T-36/04 case which pits the International Press Association (IPA) against the European Commission. The IPA is opposing the Commission's refusal to grant it access to a variety of docuements it submitted in several cases at the Court of Justice. In this case it involves interpretation of the field of application of the EC 1049/2001 regulation on public access to documents of the European institutions. The Court recognised the importance of this issue by Grand Chamber at the Court to rule on the matter.
In 2003, IPA was refused access to Commission drafted documents in several cases brought to the Court. These included declarations of position (as part of the defendant or appellant's position), as well as written observations (in cases where the Commission is not involved). The IPA bases its request on regulation EC 1049/2001, which states, “any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a member state, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, subject to principles, conditions and limits defined in this regulation”. (Article 2, paragraph 1). The Commission is drawing on exceptions included in the same regulation, namely, that such information, “would underline the protection of…court proceeding and legal advice, (or) the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure”. (Article 4, paragraph 2)
To this argument, IPA replies that the documents in question are of this “higher public interest”. In a press release on 27 February, it says, “Without access to Commission documents it is difficult to understand the consistency and the basis for many of its arguments. Access to Commission briefs will help the public better understand how well the Commission does its job”.
A further IPA argument, according to which the exceptions put forward by the Commission are to be interpreted in a narrow sense, carries some weight: it is up to the Commission to demonstrate that disclosure “would undermine” procedures, and not simply “could undermine” them (as formulated in the previous directive, now repealed).
It therefore boils down to deciding whether putting a document in the public domain would serve public interest more than it would harm legal procedures or investigations. Every request for access has to be subject to this individual assessment in any case (it is indeed what the Commission has always done). It is not expected that the decision will lead to an immediate deluge of disclosures by the Commission. The Court's decision, however, should at least bring some timely clarity on the recourses available to those who seek to drag information out of the European institutions. (cd)