Luxemburg, 02/05/2007 (Agence Europe) - The Court of First Instance has rejected the call from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) for access to certain EU Council documents, relating to the WTO Cancún negotiations in 2003. Finding for the Council, the Court decided that it was legitimate that certain documents remain confidential, given that the Council had correctly followed the necessary procedure explaining its refusal to make these documents available. WWF claimed that this infringed transparency obligations in the public interest.
“We took this action because it was important to recognise the right of access to environmental information in EU decisions which is of concern for many citizens,” said Tony Long, Director of the WWF European Policy Office in Brussels, in a press release. This ruling meant, he said, “the EU has failed to bring greater transparency and accountability to its decision-making process”.
In 2004, WWF, a non-profit making environmental organisation, asked to have access to documents relating to the negotiating position of the EU and some third countries. To be exact, this document was one drawn up by the “Article 133 Committee”, a Council committee made up of a group of experts and responsible for EU external trade issues. The document, entitled, “World Trade Organisation -Sustainability and Trade after Cancún”, relates to the official strategy after the failure of the 2003 Cancún conference. The Council refused access to the 14-page document (MD 578/03 of 10/12/2003), indicating that its release would undermine the EU's commercial interests and would also be prejudicial to its economic relations with the third countries referred to in the note.
WWF took the matter to the Court of First Instance in 2004 (case T-264/04), on the basis of Parliament and Council regulation EC n° 1049/2001 on the right of access to documents. The Council's argument won the day, however. The Court judged that public interest in having access to these documents did not, in this instance, prevail over the Council's interest in keeping them secret. In addition, according to the judgment, the Council duly explained its refusal to grant access to the documents in two documents setting out the reasons for its decision. The documents will, then, remain confidential, and this with no infringement of right of access as enshrined in the regulation. (cd)