Open Government in the EU“On the Administration of Pollution: How Much “Space to Think” May the EU Claim?”
When can an institution plausibly argue that something is decision-making, and not “mere” administration? And more importantly, how does this influence EU bodies’ legitimate claim to a “space to think” that shields them from transparency? In this newly published case note, Maarten Hillebrandt and Liisa Leppävirta argue that the EU courts still have a long way to go to clarify these questions.
A new court case further strengthen’s the EU institutions’ hands in granting access to a member state’s documents against its will.
Recent cases at the Court of Justice on Regulation 1049/01 on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents set new limits to confidentiality in the Council’s legislative and international negotiations, as Vigjilenca Abazi and Maarten Hillebrandt argue in a recent case note.
On 27 February, the General Court of the EU delivered another ruling on the EU right of public access to documents. In case T-118/12 (Breyer v Commission), German Pirate Party member Patrick Breyer (pictured) took action against the Commission’s decision not to grant it access to documents, saying that these documents, being held by the Court, fell outside of the scope of the access law. While the Court ended up ruling otherwise, ACELG PhD Eljalill Tauschinsky points at an element of the case that is problematic nonetheless: the Court’s decision to make Breyer bear half of his own costs, to punish him for publishing documents pertaining to the court case on his website, thereby allegedly inviting readers to comment negatively and exert pressure on the Commission in an ongoing case. While a comparable situation occurred over 15 years ago in the Swedish Journalist Association case, Tauschinsky argues that Breyer was punished worse for a comparable breach.
The comment, posted on the ACELG blog, can be accessed here.