Freedom of Information in the European Union: Legal Challenges and Practices of EU Institutions

Neamtu, Bogdana; Dragos, Dacian C.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-76460-3_2

Bogdana Neamtu⁶ &
Dacian C. Dragos⁶

Part of the book series: Governance and Public Management ((GPM))

548 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter addresses the topic of access to documents and more broadly transparency at the level of Community bodies, in the context of a mounting criticism regarding their opaque nature. It first investigates the outdated Directive No. 1049/2001 as well as the interplay of actors and regulations which shape this field. It then moves on to examine the case law of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and European Ombudsman in the area of exceptions from free access. Exceptions represent perhaps the most challenging aspect of access, as EU bodies in many areas enjoy a wide discretion which needs to be balanced with the right of the EU citizens to know. The chapter includes a significant number of statistics and secondary data compiled by the authors from various reports drafted by EU bodies, which illustrate the practice of these institutions in terms of granting access to documents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 219.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 279.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 279.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
S. van Bijsterveld, ‘Transparency in the European Union: A Crucial Link in Shaping the New Social Contract between the Citizen and the EU’ (Transparency in Europe II, proceedings of conference hosted by the Netherlands during its Chairmanship of the EU Council, 25 and 26 November 2004) <https://www.ip-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdf/clanki/Agenda__Bijsterveld-Paper.pdf> accessed 30 September 2017, p. 2.
2.
European Ombudsman, ‘Good Administration in Practice: The European Ombudsman’s Decisions in 2013’ (2014), <http://www.theioi.org/downloads/9d5gm/EU_OM_Good%20administration%20in%20practice_Oct%202014_EN.pdf> accessed 30 September 2017, p. 6.
3.
Right2Info, ‘Access to Information Laws: Overview and Statutory Goals’ (20 January 2012) <http://www.right2info.org/access-to-information-laws> accessed 30 September 2017.
4.
van Bijsterveld (note 1).
5.
Transparency International, ‘EU Institutions are less Transparent than Many Member States’ (EurActiv.com, 02 September 2015) <http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-society/eu-institutions-are-less-transparent-many-member-states-317240> accessed 30 September 2017.
6.
Ibidem.
7.
Ibidem.
8.
H. Labayle, ‘Openness, Transparency and Access to Documents and Information in the European Union’ (2013) <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/493035/IPOL-LIBE_NT%282013%29493035_EN.pdf> accessed 30 September 2017, p. 5.
9.
V. Tiili, ‘Transparency: An Everlasting Challenge for the European Union’, in P. Cardonnel, A. Rosas, N. Wahl, Constitutionalising the EU Judicial System: Essays in Honour of Pernilla Lindh, (Hart Publishing: 2012) pp. 473–474.
10.
Ibidem.
11.
Labayle (note 8) p. 7.
12.
L. Rossi and P. Vinagre e Silva, Public Access to Documents in the EU (Hart Publishing: 2017), pp. 9–15.
13.
ECJ, 19 July 1999, case T-14/98, Hautala v Council.
14.
ECJ, 6 April 2000, Case T-188/98, Kuijer v Council.
15.
S. Peers, ‘From Maastricht to Laeken: the Political Agenda of Openness and Transparency in the European Union’, in Deckmyn, ed., Increasing Transparency in the European Union? (EIPA, 2002), pp. 7–33; C. Naôme, ‘The Case-Law of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on Transparency: From Carvel to Hautala II (1995–2001)’, in Deckmyn, V., (ed.), Increasing Transparency in the European Union? (European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2002), pp. 147–198.
16.
ECJ, 19 October 1995, Case T-194/94.
17.
ECJ, 17 June 1998, Case T-174/95.
18.
See (note 13).
19.
See (note 14).
20.
Labayle (note 8) p. 7.
21.
M. Mihaylova, ‘Implementation of the Concept of Transparency by EU Institutions: Access to Documents’ (2013) <http://campus.hec.fr/global-transparency/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Mihaylova-Implementation-of-the-concept-of-transparency-by-EU-institutions.pdf> accessed 30 September 2017 p. 2.
22.
European Commission, ‘Public Access to Documents Held by Institutions of the European Community, A Review (Green Paper 2007)< http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0185&from=EN> accessed 30 September 2017 p. 2.
23.
J. Sant’Anna, ‘The European Ombudsman as the Guardian of Transparency’ (Presentation for the conference Europe 2020—the Civic Visions, Sofia, 29–30 January 2010), <http://old.europe.bg/en/htmls/page.php?category=397&id=26997> accessed 30 September 2017.
24.
ECJ, 3 March 1998, Case T-610/97 R.
25.
ECJ, 8 November 2000, Case T-44/97.
26.
Parliament: Review of the implementation within the European Parliament of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001(PE 324.892/BUR.); Commission: Report from the Commission on the application in 2002 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (COM (2003) 216, 29.4.2003); Council: Annual report of the Council on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (6353/03, 7.3.2003).
27.
Official Journal of the European Communities C 374/1, 29.12.2001.
28.
Official Journal of the European Communities L 145, 31.5.2001.
29.
Official Journal L 210, 11/06/2004 P. 0001–0003.
30.
Official Journal L 272, 20/08/2004 P. 0013–0015.
31.
Official Journal L 102, 07/04/2004 P. 0081–0083.
32.
Official Journal C 292, 27/11/2002 P. 0010–0012.
33.
Decision No 64/2003, OJ L 160, 28.6.2003, p. 96.
34.
European Commission, ‘Report on the implementation of the principles in EC Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council, and Commission documents’ (2004) <http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2004/EN/1-2004-45-EN-F1-1.Pdf> accessed 30 September 2017, p. 9.
35.
Decision No 603/2003, OJ L 205, 14.8.2003, p. 19.
36.
European Commission (note 34).
37.
Labayle (note 8), p. 11.
38.
S. de Greuges de Catalunya, ‘The Right of Access to Public Information’ (Monographic Report, March 2012) <http://www.sindic.cat/site/unitFiles/3151/Report%20access%20to%20public%20information.pdf> accessed 30 September 2017, p. 7.
39.
M. E. de Leeuw, ‘The European Ombudsman’s Role as a Developer of Norms of Good Administration’, EPL, 17/2 (2011), p. 355.
40.
A. M. Moure Pino, ‘The European Ombudsman in the Framework of the European Union’, Revista Chilena de Derecho, 38/3 (2011) p. 426.
41.
J. Mendes, ‘Good Administration in EU Law and the European Code of Good Administrative Behavior’ (EUI Working Papers, September 2009) <http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/12101/LAW_2009_09.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y> accessed 30 September 2017, p. 1.
42.
Ibidem, p. 6.
43.
E. Pecsteen, ‘Public access to documents: effective rear guard to a transparent EU?’ (European Law Blog, 2015), <https://europeanlawblog.eu/2015/12/30/public-access-to-documents-effective-rear-guard-to-a-transparent-eu/> accessed 30 September 2017.
44.
ECJ, 29 June 2010, Case C-28/08 P.
45.
D. Curtin and P. Leino-Sandber, ‘Openness, Transparency and the Right of Access to Documents in the EU’, (2016), <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/556973/IPOL_IDA(2016)556973_EN.pdf>, accessed 30 September 2017, pp. 16–17.
46.
Ibidem.
47.
V. Koester, ‘The Compliance Committee of the Aarhus Convention—An Overview of Procedures and Jurisprudence’, Environmental Policy and Law, 37/2–3 (2007).
48.
OJ L 124, 17.5.2005, p. 1–3.
49.
See Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p. 13.
50.
M. Rossini, ‘Council of the European Union/European Parliament: Regulation on the Application of the Aarhus Convention to Community Institutions and Bodies’, (IRIS 2006–9: Extra) <http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/9/article110.en.html>, accessed on 30 September 2017.
51.
H. Hofmann, G. Rowe, and A. Türk, Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union, (Oxford University Press: 2011), p. 478.
52.
Table can be found in Labayle (note 8) p. 13 and Hofmann, Rowe and Türk (note 51), p. 479.
53.
Curtin and Leino-Sandber (note 45) p. 5.
54.
See, for example, Commission Decision of 5 December 2001 amending its rules of procedure (notified under document number C(2001) 3714) <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32001D0937>, accessed 30 September 2017.
55.
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+RULES-EP+20170116+RULE-116+DOC+XML+V0//EN&navigationBar=YES>, accessed 30 September 2017.
56.
See, for example, Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) < https://ec.europa.eu/inea/sites/inea/files/download/key_agency_documents/access_documents/decision_sc_2008_001_of_30_09_2008.pdf >, Executive Agency for the Public Health Programme < http://ec.europa.eu/chafea/documents/about/impl_rules_PHEA_public_access_to_documents_03_02_2006.pdf>, accessed 30 September 2017.
57.
Case: OI/3/2013/MHZ.
58.
See Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention.
59.
P. Birkinshaw, Freedom of information. The Law, the Practice and the Ideal, 3rd edition, (London: Butterworths, 2001).
60.
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (note 55).
61.
See European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission on the application in 2014 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council, and Commission documents Brussels, 6.8.2015, COM(2015) 391 final’.
62.
ECJ, 19 July 1999, Case T-188/97, Rothmans International BV v Commission of the European Communities.
63.
European Ombudsman Case: 1795/2002/IJH, 11 Mar 2003, 12 Jun 2003.
64.
European Ombudsman Case: 465/2010/FOR, 30 November 2010.
65.
Case: 272/2014/OV; see also the case law of the CJEU on partial disclosure: CJEU, 14 November 2013, Joined Cases C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P Liga para a Protecção de Natureza (LPN) and Finland v Commission, paragraph 67.
66.
European Ombudsman Case: 671/2007/PB, 12 July 2010; Case: 465/2010/FOR, 30 November 2010; Case: 2293/2008/(BB)(FOR)TN, 17 December 2012; Case: 1453/2011/MMN, 29 August 2013.
67.
European Ombudsman Case: 2493/2008/(BB)(TS)FOR, 23 March 2012.
68.
European Ombudsman Case: 2632/2009/(SIT)(PF)JF, 12 August 2011; Case: 3163/2007/(BEH)KM, 05 January, 2010.
69.
European Ombudsman Case: 2493/2008/(BB)(TS)FOR 23 March 2012.
70.
Curtin and Leino-Sandberg (note 45) pp. 6–7.
71.
European Ombudsman Case: 1871/2014/EIS, 15 Mar 2016.
72.
European Ombudsman Case: 884/2010/VIK 17 February 2011.
73.
European Ombudsman Case: 2470/2009/(TS)TN 02 December 2011.
74.
European Ombudsman Case: 947/2016/JN 24 July 2017.
75.
European Ombudsman Case: 1972/2009/ANA 11 December 2012.
76.
Birkinshaw (note 59).
77.
European Ombudsman, ‘Public Access to Information in EU Data Bases’, (2008), <https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/resources/otherdocument.faces/en/4160/html.bookmark> accessed 28 August 2017.
78.
European Ombudsman Case: 2493/2008/(BB)(TS)FOR 23 March 2012.
79.
CJEU, 2 July 2015, case T-214/13, Typke v European Commission.
80.
ECJ, 6 December 2001, Case C-353/99 P, Council of the European Union v Heidi Hautala.
81.
Opinion of Mr. Advocate General Léger delivered on 10 July 2001, <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61999CC0353> visited 28 August 2017.
82.
European Ombudsman Case: 1111/2012/AN 13 June 2013.
83.
European Ombudsman Case: 1633/2008/DK 07 June 2011.
84.
European Ombudsman Case: 122/2014/PMC 19 February 2015.
85.
K. Holkeri, ‘Public Scrutiny and Access to Information in Finland’, in Public Sector Transparency and Accountability: Making it Happen, (OECD, Paris: 2002).
86.
D. Curtin, Executive Power of the European Union: Law, Practices, and the Living Constitution, (Oxford University Press: 2009), p. 220.
87.
Ibidem.
88.
Please see < http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/>.
89.
Please see < http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm>.
90.
Council of the European Union, ‘Council Annual Report on Access to Documents – 2015’, (2016)
<http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/06/24-council-access-documents/> accessed 30 September 2017, p. 4.
91.
Curtin (note 86) p. 227.
92.
CJEU, 21 July 2011, C-506/08 P, Sweden and MyTravel v Commission, paragraph 73 and CJEU, 17 October 2013, C-280/11 P, Council v Access Info Europe, paragraph 28.
93.
See, for example, CJEU, 29 June 2010, C-139/07 P, Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, paragraph 51; CJEU 28 June 2012, C-404/10 P, Kommission v. Éditions Odile Jacob, paragraph 111; CJEU, C-477/10 P, Commission v Agrofert Holding, paragraph 53; CJEU, 21 September 2010, C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P, and C-532/07 P, Sweden e. a. v API and Commission, paragraphs 69 and 70; CJEU, 14 November 2013, C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P, LPN and Finland v Commission, paragraph 53.
94.
The test was developed in ECJ, 1 July 2008, Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v Council, paragraph 43, in relation to legal advice.
95.
European Ombudsman Case: 2293/2008/(BB)(FOR)TN 17 December 2012.
96.
ECJ, 18 December 2007, Kingdom of Sweden v Commission, C-64/05 P, paragraph 66; ECJ, 1 July 2008, Kingdom of Sweden and Maurizio Turco v Council, C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P, paragraphs 34, 35 and 36; see also ECJ, 1 February 2007, Sison v Council, C-266/05 P, ECR p. I-1233, paragraph 63.
97.
European Ombudsman Case: 582/2005/PB 11 July 2006; Case: 119/2015/PHP 04 November 2015.
98.
CJEU, 3 July 2014, Council v Sophie in’t Veld, C-350/12 P, paragraph 52.
99.
CJEU, 4 Mai 2012, Sophie in’t Veld v Council, T-529/09, EU:T.2012:215, paragraph 20; CJEU, 6 December 2012, Evropaïki Dynamiki et al. v Commission, T-167/10.
100.
European Ombudsman: Case: 119/2015/PHP, 04 November 2015; Case: 3106/2007/(TS)FOR, 14 December 2011; Case: 98/2012/ER, 27 September 2013.
101.
Curtin and Leino-Sandberg (note 45), p. 6; U. Biskup and W. Rosch, ‘Recent case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Public Access to Documents: Regulation (EG) No 1049/2001 and Beyond’, 2 Revue Internationale de la Gouvernements Ouvert, (2015), pp. 60–61.
102.
ECJ, 1 July 2008, Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v Council, paragraph 50.
103.
See CJEU, 29 June 2010, Case C-139/07 Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau.
104.
CJEU, 28 June 2012, Case C-404/10 P Commission v Editions Odile Jacob and CJEU, 28 June 2012, Case C-477/10 P Commission v Agrofert Holding.
105.
CJEU, 21 September 2010, Case C-514/07 P, Kingdom of Sweden v Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) and European Commission.
106.
CJEU, 9 September 2011, Case T-29/08 Liga para Protecçao de Natureza (LPN) v Commission.
107.
European Ombudsman Case: 98/2012/ER 27 September 2013; Case: 2004/2013/PMC 05 November 2015; Case: 2781/2008/(TS)FOR 04 April 2013.
108.
CJEU, 21 July 2011 Case C-506/08 P, Sweden v MyTravel and Commission.
109.
CJEU, 28 November 2013, Case C-576/12 P, Ivan Jurasinovic v Council of the European Union, paragraph 45.
110.
CJEU, 4 May 2012, Case T-529/09, Sophie in ’t Veld v the Council supported by the Commission (In ‘t Veld I); CJEU, 12 September 2013, Case T-331/11, Leonard Besselink v the Council. European Ombudsman Case: 119/2015/PHP 04 November 2015; Case: 2393/2011/RA 22 July 2013.
111.
European Ombudsman Case: 119/2015/PHP 04 November 2015; OI/10/2014/RA 06 January 2015; Case: 689/2014/JAS 02 September 2015.
112.
ECJ, 26 April 2005, Joined cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03, Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union.
113.
See M. Costa, The Accountability Gap in the EU: Mind the Gap (Routledge: 2016), p. 40.
114.
See (note 112), Para 47.
115.
Labayle (note 8) p. 16.
116.
CJEU, 6 December 2012, case T-167/10, Evropaïki Dynamiki et al. v Commission.
117.
CJEU, 27 November 2012, case T-17/10, Steinberg v Commission.
118.
CJEU, 9 November 2010, (Volker und Markus Schecke GbR (C-92/09) and Hartmut Eifert (C-93/09) v Land Hessen; CJEU, 15 July 2015, Case T-115/13 Dennekamp v European Parliament (Dennekamp II), para 63.
119.
European Data Protection Supervisor, ‛Review of relationship between transparency and data protection more urgent after Court ruling on Bavarian Lager’, press release (30 June 2010)
<www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/PressNews/Press/2010/EDPS-2010-11_ECJ_Bavarian_Lager_EN.pdf>, accessed on 30 September 2017.
120.
Pecsteen (note 43).
121.
Curtin and Leino-Sandberg (note 48), p. 19.
122.
CJEU, 19 January 2010, cases T-355/04 and T-446/04, Co-Frutta Soc. coop. v European Commission; CJEU, 7 July 2010, case T-111/07, Agrofert Holding v European Commission; CJEU, 24 May 2011, cases T-109/05 and T-444/05, Navigazione Libera del Golfo Srl (NLG) v European Commission; CJEU, 22 May 2012, T344/08, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG v European Commission; CJEU, 15 January 2013, case T-392/07, Guido Strack v European Commission; CJEU, 29 January 2013, cases T-339/10 and T-532/10, Copesuri v European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
123.
Labayle (note 8), p. 22.
124.
Ibidem.
125.
European Ombudsman Case: 1701/2011/ANA 24 June 2013; Case: 676/2008/RT 07 July 2010.
126.
European Ombudsman Case: 1922/2014/PL 30 August 2016.
127.
European Ombudsman Case: 676/2008/RT 07 July 2010; Case: 181/2013/AN 16 February 2015.
128.
Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 11 December 2012 concerning public access to documents held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the exercise of its administrative functions (2013/C 38/02).
129.
CJEU, 21 September 2010, Kingdom of Sweden and ASBL (API) v Commission, C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C532/07 P.
130.
European Ombudsman Case: 3699/2006/ELB 06 April 2010; Case: 725/2014/FOR 01 October 2015; Case: 248/2016/PB 31 October 2016.
131.
European Ombudsman Case: 2004/2013/PMC 05 November 2015.
132.
European Ombudsman Case: 685/2014/MHZ 12 January 2015; Case: 349/2014/OV 17 March 2015.
133.
ECJ, 6 July 2006, Joined Cases: T-391/03 and T-70/04 Franchet and Byk v Commission.
134.
European Ombudsman Case: 1506/2014/JAS 17 September 2015.
135.
CJEU, 16 July 2015, Case C-612/13 P, ClientEarth v Commission, paragraph 57.
136.
CJEU, 14 November 2013, Joined Cases C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P LPN and Finland v Commission, paragraph 65.
137.
European Ombudsman Case: 1506/2014/JAS 17 Sep 2015.
138.
European Ombudsman Case: 755/2014/BEH 12 June 2014.
139.
CJEU, 17 October 2013, Case C-280/11 P, Council of the European Union v Access Info Europe.
140.
Case T-540/15, De Capitani v European Parliament.
141.
European Ombudsman Case: 292/2016/AMF 05 July 2017.
142.
European Ombudsman Case: 2781/2008/(TS)FOR 04 April 2013.
143.
European Ombudsman Case: 2914/2009/DK 14 March 2012.
144.
European Ombudsman Case: 2186/2012/FOR 16 June 2015; Case: OI/8/2015/JAS 12 July 2016.
145.
European Ombudsman Case: 2073/2010/AN 01 December 2011.
146.
European Ombudsman Case: 1743/2013/TN 20 May 2014.
147.
European Ombudsman Case: 369/2013/TN 28 July 2016.
148.
European Ombudsman Case: 2266/2013/JN 02 March 2015.
149.
European Ombudsman Case: OI/10/2014/RA 06 January 2015.
150.
CJEU, 21 June 2012, C-135/11 P, IFAW v Commission; CJEU, 14 February 2012, case T-59/09, Federal Republic of Germany v Commission.
151.
ECJ, 18 December 2007, case C-64/05 P, Kingdom of Sweden v Commission.
152.
IFAW (note 150), para 58.
153.
Labayle (note 8), p. 28.
154.
European Ombudsman Case: 1861/2009/(JF)AN 15 February 2011; Case: 1403/2012/CK 28 August 2013.
155.
CJEU, 20 March 2014, case T-181/10, Reagens SpA v Commission.
156.
CJEU, 25 September 2014, cases T-669/11 and T-306/12, Spirlea v Commission.
157.
Curtin supra n. 1, p. 6.
158.
European Ombudsman Case: 1039/2008/FOR 03 November 2010.
159.
European Ombudsman Case: 172/2010/ANA 23 November 2010; Case: 119/2015/PHP 04 November 2015; Case: OI/3/2014/FOR 08 June 2016.
160.
European Ombudsman Case: 3106/2007/(TS)FOR.
161.
European Ombudsman 11 months, for instance, see Case: 2058/2011/(BEH)JN 23 July 2013 and Case: 119/2015/PHP 04 November 2015.
162.
European Ombudsman Case: 2351/2012/JAS 23 June 2016; Case: 1402/2014/DK 21 November 2016.
163.
European Ombudsman Case: OI/6/2013/KM 11 March 2015; Case: OI/10/2015/NF 21 December 2016.
164.
Ibidem.
165.
European Ombudsman Case: 1869/2013/AN 03 November 2014.
166.
European Ombudsman Case: 1199/2016/DR 16 June 2017.
167.
European Ombudsman Case: 339/2011/AN 19 January 2012.
168.
European Ombudsman Case: 465/2010/FOR, 30 November 2010.
169.
Biskup and Rosch (note 101), p. 53.
170.
Curtin and Leino-Sandber (note 45) p. 22.
171.
Labayle (note 8), p. 38.
172.
Ibidem, p. 39.
173.
Curtin and Leino-Sandber (note 45) p. 22.
174.
Ibidem, p. 23.
175.
Ibidem, p. 24.

References

Birkinshaw, P. (2001). Freedom of information. The law, the practice and the ideal (3rd ed.). London: Butterworths.
Google Scholar
Biskup, U., & Rosch, W. (2015). Recent case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on public access to documents: Regulation (EG) No. 1049/2001 and Beyond. 2 Revue Internationale de la Gouvernements Ouvert.
Google Scholar
Costa, M. (2016). The accountability gap in the EU: Mind the gap. Abingdon: Routledge.
Book Google Scholar
Council of the European Union. (2003). Annual report of the council on the implementation of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (6353/03, 7.3.2003).
Google Scholar
Council of the European Union. (2016). Council annual report on access to documents – 2015 [Online]. Available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/06/24-council-access-documents/. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
Curtin, D. (2009). Executive power of the European union: Law, practices, and the living constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Curtin, D., & Leino-Sandber, P. (2016). Openness, transparency and the right of access to documents in the EU [Online]. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/556973/IPOL_IDA(2016)556973_EN.pdf. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
de Greuges de Catalunya, S. (2012). The right of access to public information (Monographic Report, March 2012) [Online]. Available at http://www.sindic.cat/site/unitFiles/3151/Report%20access%20to%20public%20information.pdf. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
de Leeuw, M. E. (2011). The European Ombudsman’s role as a developer of norms of good administration. EPL, 17(2), 349–368.
Google Scholar
European Commission. (2004). Report on the implementation of the principles in EC Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council, and commission documents [Online]. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2004/EN/1-2004-45-EN-F1-1.Pdf. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
European Commission. (2007). Public access to documents held by institutions of the European community, A Review (Green Paper) [Online]. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0185&from=EN. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
European Commission. Report from the commission on the application in 2014 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, council, and commission documents Brussels, 6.8.2015, COM(2015) 391 final.
Google Scholar
European Commission. Report from the commission on the application in 2002 of regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (COM (2003) 216, 29.4.2003).
Google Scholar
European Commission Decision of 5 December 2001 amending its rules of procedure (notified under document number C(2001) 3714) [Online]. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32001D0937. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
European Data Protection Supervisor. Review of relationship between transparency and data protection more urgent after Court ruling on Bavarian Lager, press release (30 June 2010) [Online]. Available at www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/PressNews/Press/2010/EDPS-2010-11_ECJ_Bavarian_Lager_EN.pdf. Accessed on 30 Sep 2017.
European Ombudsman. (2008). Public access to information in EU Data Bases [Online]. Available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/resources/otherdocument.faces/en/4160/html.bookmark. Accessed 28 Aug 2017.
European Ombudsman. (2014). Good administration in practice: The European Ombudsman’s decisions in 2013 [Online]. Available at http://www.theioi.org/downloads/9d5gm/EU_OM_Good%20administration%20in%20practice_Oct%202014_EN.pdf. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
European Parliament. (2001). Review of the implementation within the European Parliament of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001(PE 324.892/BUR.)
Google Scholar
Hofmann, H., Rowe, G., & Türk, A. (2011). Administrative law and policy of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Holkeri, K. (2002). Public scrutiny and access to information in Finland. In Public sector transparency and accountability: Making it happen. Paris: OECD.
Google Scholar
Koester, V. (2007). The compliance committee of the Aarhus convention—An overview of procedures and jurisprudence. Environmental Policy and Law, 37(2–3), 83–97.
Google Scholar
Labayle, H. (2013). Openness, transparency and access to documents and information in the European Union [Online]. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/493035/IPOL-LIBE_NT%282013%29493035_EN.pdf. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
Mendes, J. (2009, September). Good administration in EU law and the European code of good administrative behavior. EUI Working Papers [Online]. Available at http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/12101/LAW_2009_09.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
Mihaylova, M. (2013). Implementation of the concept of transparency by EU institutions: Access to documents [Online]. Available at http://campus.hec.fr/global-transparency/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Mihaylova-Implementation-of-the-concept-of-transparency-by-EU-institutions.pdf. Accessed 30 Sep 2017 p. 2.
Moure Pino, A. M. (2011). The European ombudsman in the framework of the European Union. Revista Chilena de Derecho, 38(3), 421–455.
Article Google Scholar
Naôme, C. (2002). The case-law of the court of justice and of the court of first instance of the European Communities on transparency: From Carvel to Hautala II (1995–2001). In V. Deckmyn (Ed.), Increasing transparency in the European Union? (pp. 147–198). Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration.
Google Scholar
Pecsteen, E. (2015). Public access to documents: Effective rear guard to a transparent EU? (European Law Blog). [Online]. Available at https://europeanlawblog.eu/2015/12/30/public-access-to-documents-effective-rear-guard-to-a-transparent-eu/. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
Peers, S. (2002). From Maastricht to Laeken: The political agenda of openness and transparency in the European Union. In Deckmyn (Ed.), Increasing transparency in the European Union? (pp. 7–33). Maastricht: EIPA.
Google Scholar
Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, OJ L 264, 25.9.2006.
Google Scholar
Right2Info. (2012, January 20). Access to information laws: Overview and statutory goals [Online]. Available at http://www.right2info.org/access-to-information-laws. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
Rossi, L., & Vinagre e Silva, P. (2017). Public access to documents in the EU. Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing.
Google Scholar
Rossini, M. (2006).Council of the European Union/European Parliament: Regulation on the application of the Aarhus convention to community institutions and bodies. (IRIS 2006–9: Extra) [Online]. Available at http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/9/article110.en.html. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. 2017. [Online]. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+RULES-EP+20170116+RULE-116+DOC+XML+V0//EN&navigationBar=YES. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
Sant’Anna, J. (2010, January). The European Ombudsman as the guardian of transparency (Presentation for the conference Europe 2020—the Civic Visions, Sofia, 29–30) [Online]. Available at http://old.europe.bg/en/htmls/page.php?category=397&id=26997. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
Tiili, V. (2012). Transparency: An everlasting challenge for the European Union. In P. Cardonnel, A. Rosas, & N. Wahl (Eds.), Constitutionalising the EU judicial system: Essays in honour of Pernilla Lindh (pp. 473–485). Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing.
Google Scholar
Transparency International. (2015, September 2). EU institutions are less transparent than many member states. (EurActiv.com) [Online]. Available at http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-society/eu-institutions-are-less-transparent-many-member-states-317240. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.
van Bijsterveld, S. (2004). Transparency in the European union: A crucial link in shaping the new social contract between the citizen and the EU. (Transparency in Europe II, proceedings of conference hosted by the Netherlands during its Chairmanship of the EU Council, 25 and 26 November) [Online]. Available at https://www.ip-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdf/clanki/Agenda__Bijsterveld-Paper.pdf. Accessed 30 Sep 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Center for Good Governance Studies, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj Napoca, Romania
Bogdana Neamtu & Dacian C. Dragos

Authors

Bogdana Neamtu
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Dacian C. Dragos
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bogdana Neamtu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Center for Good Governance Studies, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj Napoca, Romania
Dacian C. Dragos
Faculty of Administration, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Polonca Kovač
Department of Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Public Administration, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
Albert T. Marseille

Appendices

Appendix 1: Profile of Applicants

Table A1.1 Commission: breakdown of initial requests by the occupational profile of applicants (%)

Full size table

Table A1.2 Council: breakdown of initial requests by the occupational profile of applicants (%)

Full size table

Table A1.3 European Parliament: breakdown of initial requests by the occupational profile of applicants (%)

Full size table

Appendix 2: Documents in the Public Registers

A multiple-line graph depicts an increase in E P document references and documents in all languages for the public register of the parliament's documents from 2011 through 2015. — **Fig. A2.1**

A line graph depicts an increase in documents in all languages in the public register of the council's documents from 2011 through 2015. — **Fig. A2.2**

A line graph of a public register of parliament's documents from 2011 through 2015. The trend depicts a declining line from 19956 to 17940. — **Fig. A2.3**

A line graph of a public register of the commission's documents from 2011 through 2015. The trend depicts an inclined line from 244876 through 344628 for original language documents. — **Fig. A2.4**

A line graph of a number of documents consulted for the European parliament's documents from 2011 through 2015. — **Fig. A2.5**

From 2011 to 2015, a line graph of unique visitors to the commission's general website. The trend depicts a constant decline line from 41408 through 15525. — **Fig. A2.6**

A line graph of unique visitors for the council's register from 2011 through 2014. The trend depicts a constant inclined line from 557391 through 802953. — **Fig. A2.7**

Appendix 3: Exceptions Used for Refusals by the Commission, Council, and European Parliament

Table A3.1 Commission: breakdown of refusals by exception applied (%)

Full size table

Table A3.2 Council: breakdown of refusals by exception applied (%)

Full size table

Table A3.3 European Parliament: breakdown of refusals by exception applied (%)

Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Neamtu, B., Dragos, D.C. (2019). Freedom of Information in the European Union: Legal Challenges and Practices of EU Institutions. In: Dragos, D.C., Kovač, P., Marseille, A.T. (eds) The Laws of Transparency in Action. Governance and Public Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76460-3_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76460-3_2
Published: 21 July 2018
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76459-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76460-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Freedom of Information in the European Union: Legal Challenges and Practices of EU Institutions

Abstract

Access this chapter

Notes

References

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix 1: Profile of Applicants

Appendix 2: Documents in the Public Registers

Appendix 3: Exceptions Used for Refusals by the Commission, Council, and European Parliament

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Publish with us

Search

Navigation