440

Access to EU Documents: An End at Last to

the Authorship Rule?

Moritzvon Unger*
The key legal text governingpublic access to EU documents is Regulation 1049/2001.In
contrast to the previous legal regime, the Regulation dismissesthe so called authorship
rule,whichaligns it with recent developmentsin the fieldof the law of transparency and,
notably,of international environmentallaw (AarhusConvention).The European institu-
tions are hence tasked with making all documentsaccessibleto the public,which include
both those originating with them and thosefrom third parties. Yet unlike the Aarhus
Convention,the Regulation has a blind spot, which leads to the important question of
whether a Member State can simply order the institutions to withhold any of its docu-
ments whenever it chooses to do so. For the first time, the European Court of Justice is
being asked to hand down a judgment on this question. The author suggests that the
Court may wish to consider an interpretation of Regulation 1049/2001 that adjusts it
further to the international standard as set by the Aarhus Convention.

I. Introduction mental democracy"(KofiAnnan).lFrom its mod-

Sincethe birth of the contemporaryenvironmen-
talistmovement,freedomandaccessibility of infor-
mationhavebeenkeydemandson activists'politi-
cal agenda.The diversesourcesof pollutantemis-
sions,the complexitiesof an ecosystem'sreaction,
the substantial -yet alltoo oftenhidden -risksfor
humansand naturein generalmakeknowledgean
essentialconditionfor both coherentrisk analyses
and effectiveaction.Todaythe rightto information
is one of the cornerstonesof environmentallaw
with the AarhusConventionof 1998as the leading
internationaldocumentin that field,emphatically
deemed"the most ambitiousventure in environ-
ern originsin environmental law,the rightto infor-
mationhasrecentlyemergedas an enforceable con-
stitutionalright that threadsits waythroughevery
disciplineof publiclaw.2
II. A European Right to Information
The Europeandevelopmentof what in an institu-
tional perspectivemay be called the principle
of openness or transparencygoes back to the
MaastrichtTreaty,whereit wasprominentlystated
that"decisionsaretakenas closelyaspossibleto the
citizen".3
The new awarenesssoonled to concrete

*Theauthor Officer
is Legal at the
Directorate-General
for Justice, PressAct(Tryckfrihetsförordningen)
of1766, theUSFreedom of
Freedom andSecurityof the
EuropeanCommission.The views Information
Actof1966 or the BasicRightInformation
to under the
expressedarepurelythoseof the
writer
andmaynotin any German of1
Grundgesetz (on 949 the latter
see the
especiallyhigh-
circumstancesberegardedstating
as anofficial of the
position lyambitious
rulingoftheGerman ConstitutionalCourt of1969,
EuropeanCommission. BVerfGE,vol.1 03,
p.72).Itismerelyobserved thatthedevelop-
1UNECE Conventionof25June1 998 onAccess ment of such
toInformation, ticethroughoutearly into
rights constitutional
law and intolegal
prac-
Public inDecision-MakingandAccesstoJustice
in theWestern world isoffairly
recent origin.
Participation
EnvironmentalMatters('Aarhus ontheconvention 3Article
Convention"); ATEU (now Article1EU); seealsoDeclaration 17No
to
Wates,
generally TheAarhus Convention:ADrivingForceforEnvi- theMaastricht "TheConference
Treaty:
ofthedecision-making
considersthattranspa-
thedemocratic
ronmentalDemocracy, JEEPL2005,p.2;for the
right informa-
to rency processstrengthens
tionasaguidingglobal inenvironmental
principle lawSands, natureof the
institutions
andthepublic's confidence intheadmin-
Principles International
of Environmental istration.
2nded., Cambridge mission
Law, TheConference accordinglyrecommends thattheCom-
2003;from a national
Klöpfer, Umweltrecht
als Infor- sures submittothe Council nolaterthan 1 993
a report onmea-
UPR
mationsrecht, Umwelt Planungsrecht
und 2005,p.41 . designedtoimprove publicaccess totheinformation avail-
abletotheinstitutions."
Note thatontheFuropean plane, it
again,
2This
assumption,however,isnotmade tobelittle
early
stepsin wasenvironmental lawthatsetthefoundation foranindividual
public suchastheSwedish
information politics Freedom of the toinformation;
right asearlyas1 990theEuropean Council
 441

steps: in 1993 the Counciladopted a Code of A growing,and at times strangelyundecided,case

Conducton accessto Councildocuments,4 and the
Commissionfollowedsuit in 1994.? The Treatyof
Amsterdamelaboratedthe principlefurtherby ded-
icatingan articlein the ECTreatygrantingto "any
citizenof the Union"a right of "accessto European
Parliament,Counciland Commissiondocuments"
and by explicitlymandatingthat the law-making
institutionsenactan implementing measurewithin
two years of the entry into force of the Treaty.
Thismandateresultedin Regulation1049/2001of
3o May200 16 regardingaccessto EuropeanParlia-
ment,Counciland Commission Documentsit; sets
the currentlyapplicablelegalframeworkfor a pub-
lic rightto accessany documentstheseinstitutions
hold in their possession.7Environmental informa-
tion, however,is peculiarin that the implementa-
tion of the Aarhus Conventionis done through
specificregulation.8Yet,Article3 of this regula-
tion containsan explicitreferenceto Regulation
1049/2001. The differentlegalacts,thus, are com-
plementingmeasures.9
lawon the rightto informationhas developedover
the years,rangingfromremarkablealoofness,if not
indifference,towardsthe notionof transparencyto
an emphaticembraceof its value.Whileacknowl-
edgingthe roleof the rightof accessto information
in "strengtheningthe principlesof democracyand
respect for fundamentalrights"10,the Court of
Justiceas recently as 2003 flatly dismissedthe
claimthat this rightitselfwasa principleof a high-
er order(unlikefundamentalrights,whichhavethe
capacityto overrideor set asidesecondarylegisla-
This point of substancewas secondedby a
somewhatfalteringproceduralapproachby both
the Courtof FirstInstanceand the Courtof Justice.
When the Courtshad two earlygoldenopportuni-
ties to addressa widerangeof basicprinciplesand
featuresof the new freedomof informationand to
setfirst-handprecedents,theychoseto articulateon
the casespresentedin a most minimalist,narrow,
and sophisticway. 21 Thishardlyhelpedthe newera
of transparency,so eloquently evoked in the

adoptedtheDirective onthefreedom ofaccess toinformationon theenvironment. Regulation 1049/2001, ontheother hand,does

theenvironment, Council Directive90/313/EEC of7June1990, notexplicitlylink the
Article4exceptions toanyprinciple of
OJ1 990 L158/56 (later
repealed byDirective2003/4/EC of restrictive Nevertheless,
interpretation. the iswellesta-
principle
28January 2003, OJ2003L78/1 For 6).anhistoric account of the blishedintheRegulation's caselaw,cf.infra, note18.
transparency inthesee Peers,
dispositif From Maastrichtto 1 0 Case C-41/00, Interporc Im-undExport GmbH vCommission
Laeken.ThePoliticalAgenda ofOpenness andTransparency in the [2003] ECR 5, 39.
1-212para.
EU,inDeckmyn (ed.),IncreasingTransparency intheEuropean
Union, Maastricht2002, seealsoTomkins,
p.7;Administrative Transparencyand 11lbid,para. 43;note,however, the twisted languageECJ used
the
theEmergence ofa European Law, Yearbookof inthisparagraphthe andcautious reference tothe"time when
European Law 1999/2000, p.21 7. thecontested decision taken".
was Fora contextual isation of the
4CouncilDecision 93/731/EC of20December 1 993,OJ1 993 "limited andincomplete public right ofaccess to documents" see
L340/43; theCouncil sawthelegal basis initspower ofinternal Brisard,droitLed'accès dupublic aux documents nonpubliés
this
organisation; approach was endorsed the in
by ECJC-58/94, desinstitutionscommunautaires, du March6
Revue Commun et
NetherlandsvCouncil [1 996] ECR 1-2169. del'Union européenne 2007, p.127.
5 Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of8 February 12SeeCaseT-194/94,and Guardian
Carvel vCouncil [1994] ECR
1994, OJ1994L46/58. 11-2765,andCase C-58/94, Netherlands vCouncil [1 996]
(EC)oftheEuropean Parliamentand of the
Council of ECR 1-2169; Carvel concerned the disclosure of Council minutes,
6 Regulation attendance andvoting records withtheapplicant challenging
30May 2001regarding public accesstoEuropean Parliament, therefusal ofdisclosureonthegrounds of(preceding) funda-
CouncilandCommission documents, Oj2001L145/43. mental ofCommunity
principles law,legitimate expectations,
7 Note legalexist
that special regimes forpartiesspecifically concer-infringement of theCode ofConduct, infringement of
nedbycertain documents, forinstanceArticle100 (3) Council Article253,andmisuse ofpowers. In itsjudgement, para. 73,
Regulation(EC)1 605/2002 ("FinancialRegulation") ontheright theCFIreferred tothequestion only whetherCouncilthe erred
oftendererstobeinformed ontheirunsuccessful bid.Note inassuming thatdisclosure hadtoberefused imperatively and
alsothat the
Commission hasrecently published a GreenPaper thatithadnodiscretion tobalance theinterests involved;the
(COM(2007) 185final)toreview application
the ofRegulation Court found itdidandregarded itunnecessary to comment on
1049/2001 andpossibly topropose anamendment oftheact. anyother issueraised.InNetherlands vCouncilCourt the of
(EC)
8 Regulation 1367/2006 of the European Parliamentand of the Justicewas asked toset asidethe Council's Code ofConduct on
Councilof6September 2006 ontheapplication oftheprovisions theof
grounds thattheCouncil,
Article207 EC
under
(then
itsauthority
the
toadopt
foundation
itsrules
forthe
oftheAarhus Convention, OJ2006L264/13. procedure, legal
Code), hadnopower toregulate a matter asimportant asthe
9 Notethat the
scope ofRegulation 1376/2006 isbroader thanthe question ofaccess todocuments. TheCourt rejected theargu-
of
scope Regulation 1 049/2001 The : access
right to concerns ment arguing thatthe Code itselfwas a voluntary agreement
documents ofallCommunity institutions
andbodies, notjust having nolegal effectsandthusbeing noadmissible object for
CouncilCommission
Parliament, or documents 3of
(see Article annulment, whiletheDecision implementing theCode wasjusti-
theRegulation).
Moreover, itisexplicitly
stated that
theexceptions fiedonthegrounds that the"trend" (para. 36)toa right ofaccess
totheobligationofdisclosure setoutinArticle 4Regulation
of toinformation made itappropriate thefor
Council tothe
1049/2001 must beinterpreted ina restrictive
waytaking into rulesgoverning itsinternal organisation" (ibid.)so long asthe
account public
the by the information requested Community hasnotadopted
legislature general onits
rules
andwhether information
the requested relates
toemissions into behalf (para.37).
442

Treaties of Maastrichtand Amsterdam,gather stantiallimitationsof the Court'sjurisdictionin

momentum. 13 As a tellingreminderof the right's TitleV and TitleVI matters(Article46 EU).Third,
weaknesses, the Courtof Justicein 2oo6,on its first iteratingthe notionof effetutile,both the ECJand
occasionto judge on a provision of Regula- the CFIhave repeatedlystressedthat the right to
tion 1049/2001,took a remarkablycomplacent informationaimsto givethe widestpossibleaccess,
stance towards the institutions'justificationfor with anyexceptionfromthis ruleto be interpreted
withholdingan official document.In Sison v. narrowly. 81 Fourth,everyrequestdemandsa con-
Council -the caseconcernedCouncilinformation crete,individualexaminationof the contentof the
that gaverise to the applicant'slistingfor specific desireddocumentand a refusalof accessto docu-
treatmentas a suspectedterroristor a personwith mentsrequiresan adequateexplanation(statement
possibleterroristaffiliation -the Courtsanctioned of reasons ).19
9 Finally,fifth, where an exception
the Council'sdecisionto refuse disclosurewith appliesto justifythe withholdingof information
drawingscantnoticeto the institutions'obligation (on the groundsof publicinterests,privacyof the
to state reasons.The Courteasilycontenteditself individual,commercial interests,courtproceedings,
with the broadreferenceto "thefightagainstinter- legaladvice,inspections,investigations, audits,or
nationalterrorism"and the abstractrisk that the where purely internal documentsare concerned)
disclosureof informationcould "underminethe the institutionin possessionof the documenthasto
actiontakenby the publicauthority" 414True, it is a assesswhether it can make the documentpartly
generalweakness,if not dysfunction,of Regulation accessible.20The principleof proportionality, the
1049/2001that Article4 (1),unlike Article4 (2), Courtargued,demandsthat the test of accessibility
doesnot allowfora (re-)balancing (ofthe interestin be madefor all parts of a requesteddocumentand
confidentialityagainstthe publicinterestin disclo- thus for everypieceof informationit contains.This
sure). Furthermore,Regulation1049/2001is a transitionfromaccessibility of documentsto acces-
strictlypublicinstrumentin that it disregardsall sibilityof (discrete)informationis an important
personalaffiliationor interestwith a specificdocu-
ment.Thus,fur the purposesof the legalsituation
in Sisonv. Councilit madeno differencethat the
applicantwaspersonallyconcerned;a similarappli- 13Fora criticalaccountoftheearly caselawTomkiTransparency
ns,
andtheEmergence ofa European AdministrativeLaw, Yearbook
cationof a whollyunrelatedpartywouldhavehad ofEuropean Law 1999/2000, p.217 (p.224etseqq.).
to be treatedin an identicalway. 51 Yet simplylook- 14Case C-266/05, PSison vCouncil, 1 February 2007,notyet
ingin fromthe outside,it is disconcerting to seethe reported,para.62.Foranextensive discussion of the judgment
seeHeliskoski/Leino,Darkness attheBreak ofNoon: TheCase
conjuredphantomof a terroristthreatableto evap- Law onRegulation No.1 049/2001 onAccess toDocuments,
orate all safeguardswithholdingor protecting CMLR 2006, 735
p. (p. 750et seqq.).
information,whetheror not sucha threat has any 1 5 Notabene,thisisnota faultperseofRegulation 1049/2001;
crediblebasis. itrather
points toa voidelsewhere: Untilthedaythereisno
stringent
legal instrument interested
forparties affected
byan
On various accounts,however,the Court has administrative measure
legaltohave expedient access
tohis or
taken a firm and self-confident herfile.Seefurther,
inthecontext ofaccess toinformation
con-
approachtowards cerning "terrorist
listings", desModjahedines
L'organisation du
the right of accessto documents.First,stillunder peupled'Iran v Council,12December 2006, not yet
reported.
the legalregimeof the Codeof Conduct,it ruled 1 6 Case
T-1 74/95Svenska JournalistförbundetvCouncil [1 998]
that documentsof allkinds,i.e.relatingto all fields ECR 11-2289],paras.81and82.
ofthe institutions'activities,fallwithinthe scopeof 17Ibid.,para. 85.
the right to information.61Thus,even documents 1 8 AsregardstheCode ofConduct joined Cases C-1 74/98Pand
C-1 89/98P,Netherlands andVander Wal vCommission [2000]
establishedor gatheredunderTitleV (commonfor- ECR , 27;forthelegal
1-1para. situation
under Regulation
1049/2001 seeT-110/03,Sison vCouncil [2005] ECR 11-1429,
eign and securitypolicy)and TitleVI (policeand para.45;Case C-266/05 P,Sison vCouncil, 1February 2007,
judicialcooperationin criminalmatters) -i.e. sec- notyetreported, 61;Case
para. T-36/04,API vCommission,
ondand third pillarUnionlawthat widelyremains 12September 2007, not yetreported,para. 51 .
in nature - are,as a rule,open 1 9 Case
T-105/95, WWF UK vCommission [1997] ECRI I-313,
inter-governmental paras.74,75.
and accessibleto the publiceye.Second,the juris- 20Case C-353/99 P,Hautala vCouncil [2001] ECR 1-9565,
dictionof the Courtis equallybroadand coversthe para. 23:"[The]Council andtheSpanish Government arewrong
that[theDecision
in submitting implementing theCodeof
accessibilityof documentsrelatedto all three pil- Conduct] concerns onlyaccess todocuments assuchrather
than
lars.? ?Thisis by no meansevidentgiventhe sub- totheinformation contained inthem."
 443

judge-made transformationof the legalact .21

It de- Yet,the situationsubstantiallychangedwith the
serves attention in this contextthat the Aarhus adoptionof Regulation1049/2001. Its Articles2 (3)
Conventionexpressisverbiszerosin on accessibili- and4 (4)rejectthe originalistschemeof the author-
ty of information,not documents. shipruleby makingthe institutionsresponsiblefor
all documentsin their possessionand by reducing
the legalpositionof the third partyto a right to be
consultedonly:
III. Challenge to the Authorship Rule Article2 (3):'TheRegulationshall apply to all
documentsheld by an institution,that is to say,
Notwithstanding the developmentof the right to documentsdrawnup or receivedby it and in its
informationintoa powerfulinstrumentand practi- possession..."
cal weapon,a key issue has been shielded,until Article4 (4) :"As regardsthird-partydocuments,
veryrecently,fromboth the lawmakers' viewand the institutionshallconsultthe thirdpartywitha
that of the Community's judicialbranch:the status viewto assessingwhetheran exception... is appli-
of third partydocumentsand,in particular,of doc- cable,unlessit is clearthat the documentshallor
umentsoriginatingwith a MemberStateauthority. shallnot be disclosed."
Underthe Codeof Conduct,though,the situation This is a significantinnovationwith an immense
was straight-forward: Wherea document,the pas- practical impact. The European institutions,
sage in questionread,held by an institutionwas though relativelysmall in their number of staff,
written by a natural or legal person,a Member overseean immenseadministrationof informa-
State,anotherCommunityinstitutionor body,or tion as well as managementof (largelyexternal)
anyothernationalor internationalbody,the appli- data (of27 MemberStatesand scoresof countries
cationwassentdirectto the authorwhothenwould globally) - a responsibilityhardly matchedelse-
judgefor him-or herself,under domesticor other whereon this planet.Regulation1049/2001 makes
legalprovisionor elseout of discretion,whetheror a priori accessiblenot only all documentsdrawn
not to make the requesteddocumentavailable. up by the institutions,but all documents,hitherto
While this so calledauthorshiprule, just as any effectivelywithheldfrompublic scrutiny,submit-
exceptionto the generalprincipleof openness,was ted to the institutionsin the courseof their politi-
to be construedand appliednarrowly,22 the case cal and administrativeactivities.It is,thus, for the
lawwouldinsiston its nature as "an absoluteand institutionsto decidewhetherany suchdocument
unqualifiedexceptionfor documentsauthoredby a can be accessedor needsto be protectedfromdis-
third party"that left no discretionwith the institu- closureon the groundsset out in Article4 (1)(pub-
tion approachedand voidedthe need to provide lic interestand the protectionof the privacyand
specificreasonsfor refusingaccess.23 the integrityof the individual)and Article4 (2)
(commercialinterests, court proceedings,legal
advice,inspections,investigations, and audits),re-
21Note, however,thattheCFIrecently added animportant restric-spectively.Clearly,there had alwaysbeen the pos-
tiontothescope ofaccessibility
ofinformation under Regulation
1049/2001.InCaseT-264/04, WWF-EPO vCouncil, 25April sibilityof accessingthird party documentson a
2007, notyetreported,para. 76, itfound thata right
toaccess decentralizedscheme - by putting forward an
information
remains linkedan toexisting document,thatis,it
cannotbeclaimed thattheinstitutions draw upa documentto applicationof accessat the domesticlevel.Yet,this
information
report thathadnotbeencontained in anydocument requiredfirst and foremostthe existenceof a right
fora critique
before; ofthe judgment seeFerreira,TheFunda-
mentalRightofAccess toEnvironmental Information intheEC: A to informationin the countryconcerned;and it
Critical
Analysisof WWF-EPO v.Council, tobepublished dour- subjectedan applicantto gatheringall kind of
nalofEnvironmental Law). informationfor every domesticsystem
22Case C-41/00,InterporcIm-undExport GmbH vCommission practical
concernedin orderto successfully submita bid for
[2003]ECR 1-2125,para. 49;itfollows thattheinstitution
verifies
theoriginof therequested documentinformsand the accessto documents.
applicantof theauthor.SeealsoCaseT-188/97 Rothmans Inter- Theboldrenunciationof the authorshiprulewas
national
vCommission [1999] ECR 11-2463onthedefinitionof
authorship(incasua comitology committee paper, which,for pioneered, again,by environmentalactivistsand
thepurposes oftheright toaccess, washeldtobe a Commission environmentallaw.TheAarhusConvention, on the
document).
23CaseT-47/Ol, Co-FruttaSoc.coop.rl v.Commission [2003]
J question of third party documents, states the fol-
ECR 11-4441,
para.59et.seq. lowing :
444
'A requestfor environmentalinformationmay
be refusedif...thedisclosurewouldadverselyaf
fect... [the)interestsof a third party whichhas
suppliedthe informationrequestedwithoutthat
partybeingunderor capableof beingput undera
legalobligationto do so, and wherethat party
does not consentto the releaseof the materi-
al... "(Article
4 (4)(g))
Thethird party,under this provision,may consent
or rejectdisclosure, but it is forthe authorityin pos-
sessionof the documentto grant or refuseaccess.
Regulation1049/2001,as shown, has a similar
mechanismof third party consultationswith the
ultimate authorityover a document'sdisclosure
lyingwith the institutions.Yet,the relevantprovi-
sionin the Regulationbecomesambiguousfor doc-
umentswhoseauthorsare MemberStatesauthori-
ties.Herethe quis judicabit,i.e.the questionas to
who has ultimate authority to grant or refuse
access,is in limbo.Article4 (5)ofthe Regulation, to
be sure,setsfortha specificarrangement:
A MemberState mayrequestthe institutionnot
to disclosea documentoriginatingfrom that
MemberStatewithoutits prioragreement." I MemberStates.Whilethe Commissionand Parlia-
This provisioncouldnot be more confusing.The
question,more specifically, is whether or not it
impliesa negativeauthorshiprule in that it grants
MemberStates the right to be consultedon the
accessibility of any of "their"documents(contrary
to Article4 (4)whereconsultationis not mandato-
ry) and the power to commandthe institutions
to withholddisclosurewithout leavinga margin
of discretionfor the institution consultingthe
MemberState.
The secondclaimdeservesparticularattention.
Thepowerto requestnot to disclosewithoutprior
agreementseemsto arguefor mandatoryapproval.
Yet,the imperativeto requestputs this slightlyinto
doubt; to requestis not to order or to command,
ratherto askor to solicit.Thisleavesroomto think
that the ultimatedecisionto disclosea document
lieswith the institution,not the MemberState.The
firm languageof "withoutits prior agreement", on
the other hand,is hardlyexpliciton the responsi-
bilityfor the decisionof disclosure.Toavoida tau-
tology(theiterationof whatwas just said:that the
MemberStatemay requestnot to disclosea docu-
ment),the sentenceadverbneedsto be interpreted
in a proceduralsense:A MemberStatemay,at any
time,ask for specifictreatmentof a particulardoc-
ument, i.e. that the institutionwill consult the
MemberStatein the casethat accessto the docu-
ment is requestedunder the Regulation(withno
discretionas to non-consultancy). Such reading
also brings stringencyto the first assumption
made.Article4 (4)of the Regulationthat givesthe
institutionsdiscretionover whether to consulta
third party concernedat all is not fully repealed
by Article4 (5).The latter only stipulates -or, in-
deed,suggests(requests) that
- forwhena Member
Statehas askedto be consultedfor approvalprior
to a specificrequestfor access,such consultation
takes place.The formula,then, does not grant a
right of veto.
Thetextualambiguityis ultimately,as the histo-
ry of the provisionproves,neither linguisticnor
genericallylegal;it is political.When draftingthe
Regulation, the Member States, considerably
divergingin theirtraditionof publicaccessibility of
administrativeinformation(with, grosso modo,
Scandinaviancountries pushing for more and
Mediterraneancountriespushing for less trans-
parency),couldnot find agreementon howto han-
dle disclosureof documents originating from
ment favoureda phrasingthat wouldmake clear
that MemberStatesonlyhad a right to be consult-
ed, the Councilcould not agree on any kind of
wording,until all sideswereconvincedthat it was
best to use the same languagethat had been
employedin a declarationto Article255EC,adopt-
ed simultaneously with the AmsterdamTreaty.24
DeclarationN'35no doubt itselfproductof equal
Salomonicwisdom,read:
'The Conferenceagreesthat the principlesand
conditionsreferredto in Article[255(1)}of the
Treatyestablishing theEuropeanCommunity will
allowa MemberStateto requestthe Commission
or theCouncilnotto communicate to thirdparties
a documentoriginatingfrom that State without
its prioragreement."
As so oftenin the makingof Europeanlaw,it was
in this way left to the judicialbranchto sort out
the mess.
24Onthelawmaking Darkness
atthe
process Heliskoski/Leino,
Break
ofNoon:
TheCase Law
onRegulation
No.1 049/2001
on
Access
toDocuments,
CMLR 2006, 735
p. (p. 771etseqq.).
 445

out before,the AarhusConventionleavesno doubt

IV.The Authorship Rule Tested in as to the non-existence of the authorshipruleor its
Court: From Mara Messina to IFAW residuary,a right of veto.This,indeed,suggestsan
Internationaler Tierschutz openconflictbetweenthe Regulation(as interpret-
ed in Mara Messina)and the Convention.To be
It certainlydid not take long beforethe CFIwas sure,the final administrativedecisionin the case
confrontedwith the issueof MemberStatesdocu- IFAWInternationalerTierschutzwastakenin 2002
ments.25Yetthe Courtdid not seemto havebeen (the date of the administrativedecisionmarking
throwninto too deepa confusionby the challenge. the referencedate for legal review)and the CFI
In Mara Messina,which involvedthe request to decidedthe casein 2004,whileratificationof the
accesscorrespondence betweenthe Italiangovern- Aarhus Conventionon Communitylevel was in
ment and the Commissionon a state aid scheme, 2005and Regulationi367/2oo6on the application
the Courtcurtlynoted that neitherthe objectnor of the AarhusConventionwas adoptedin 2oo6
the effectof Article4 (5)of Regulation1049/2001 only However,the European Communityhad
amends national legislationon access to docu- signedthe AarhusConventionin 1998,and Council
ments.26 With thisthe Courtapparentlymeantthat and Parliament,in their 2oo3revisionof Directive
it is for nationallegislationto regulatethe accessi- 90/313,claimedthat provisionsof Communitylaw
bility of a "nationaldocument",not for the Com- "must" (already)be consistentwith the Aarhus
munity'slaw-makers. Withoutany furtherado,the Convention.28 What is more,giventhe ambiguous
Courtconcludedthat that the powerconferredon meaningof Article4 (5) of Regulation1049/2001,
MemberStatesunderthat provisionto requestthe one wouldhave almostexpectedthe Courtto seek
non-disclosure of their documentsto third parties guidancefroma soon-to-be internationalobligation
withouttheir prior agreementis one of the excep- of the Community29 9
tions to the right of accessto documents.27 There Thecaseinvolveddocumentsstemmingfroman
was,thus, in casuno need to questionthe right of exchangeof notes betweenthe Commissionand
the Italiangovernmentto requestnon-disclosure or Germanyon the declassificationof the "Natura
to hold the Commissionaccountablefor its con- 2000" (HabitatsDirective43/92) protected area
formingto the Italianrequest. Mühlenberger Loch(Hamburg). Onthe shoreof the
Ayearon,the CFIdeliveredits secondjudgment MühlenbergerLoch DaimlerChryslerAerospace
on the question;unfortunately,it elaboratedwith Airbus maintainsan industrialsite. In the mid
little more care on the meaningand functionof 1990Sthe companyhad askedthe Cityof Hamburg
Article4 (5)of the Regulation. It is noteworthythat to sealone fifth of the naturereserveto makeway
in IFAWInternationalerTierschutzit was an envi- for an enlargedproductionand test site.With the
ronmentalmatter(i.e.environmentalinformation) Germanauthoritiesfavourableto the enlargement
that put the Court'sprecedentto a test.Aspointed project,it fellto their FederalGovernmentto seek
permissionfrom the European Commissionto
removethe levelof Communityprotectionin force
25CaseT-76/02, Mara MessinavCommission [2003]ECR11-3203; at the time.Thefollowingcorrespondence between
CaseT-168/02, IFAW InternationalerTierschutz-Fonds
GmbH v the authoritiesin BerlinandBrusselsultimatelyled
Commission [2004] ECR11-4135;Case Isabella
T-1 87/03, Scip- to the issue of an opinionof the Commissionin
pacercolavCommission [2005]ECII-1 029.
26CaseT-76/02, Mara MessinavCommission [2003]ECR11-3203, April 2000that authorisedGermanyto go ahead
para.41. with the declassification of the Mühlenberger Loch
27CaseT-76/02, Mara MessinavCommission [2003]ECR11-3203, fromits "Natura2000"status.In 2001,IFAWInter-
para.55. nationalerTierschutz,a non-governmental
28SeefifthrecitalofDi rective
of2003/4/ECof28January organi-
2003, sation activein the field of protectionof animal
OJ2003L78/1 6.
29Note, however,thatinanothercase,inT-264/04,WWF-EPO v welfareand nature conservation,requested,in an
Council,25April 2007, notyetreported, 79,theCFIleftno applicationto the Commission,
para. accessto the notes
doubt overitsformal,technical
approach totheAarhus
Conven- and letters exchangedbetweenGermanyand the
tion,pointing tothefactthattheConvention
explicitly wasnot
force"
yet "in at thetimewhen therelevantadministrative
deci- Commission. TheCommission grantedaccessto its
sion hadbeentaken (30April itrefused
2004); therefore
togrant owncommunicationbut ; lettersanddoc-
itanysignificanceforthe matter
inquestion.TheConvention, regarding
indeed, enteredintoforceon30October 2001. uments in its possessionoriginatingfrom Ger-
446

many,it consultedthe GermanGovernmenton its AdvocateGeneral(PoiaresMaduro)has delivered

position.After the GermanGovernmenthad ex- his opiniontaking a firm stanceon the residual
pressedits wish not to disclosethe documentsin authorshiprule, i.e. the MemberStates'right of
question,the Commissionrefusedaccesson the veto,and askingthe Courtto nullifythe judgment
groundsof Article4 (5) of Regulation1049/2001. of the CFI.
The confirmatoryapplicationwas unsuccessful The AdvocateGeneral,in stark contrastto both
and IFAWInternationalerTierschutz,supported the cursoryrulingof the CFIin the presentmatter
by the Netherlands,Swedenand Denmark,turned and the general, minimalist approach of both
to the Court of First Instance;the Commission Courtsin their previouscaselaw,put greatempha-
as the defendantwas supportedby the United sison the constitutionalising
powerof the principle
Kingdom. of transparencyand the right to information.He
In its judgmentthe CFIneithercommentedon seesthe "rightof access';indeed,as a fundamental
the ambiguouswordingof Art 4 (5) of the Regu- positionof the individual,transposingit to a rank
lationnor did it referto the AarhusConventionin of higherorder:
its interpretationof the provision.Instead, the 'Thatrightof access,moreover,is of the natureof
Court commencedits findingsby confirmingits a fundamental right,as confirmedbythe factthat
earlierruling in MariaMessinapointingout that it was reproducedin Article42 of the Charterof
Regulation1049/2001is not intendedto amend Fundamental Rights."36
nationallegislationon accessto documents.30 This, Followingthis hierarchicalsetting,a readingof
the Court found, was indeed apparent from the Regulation1049/2001,after which certain docu-
verytextof Article4 (5)whichsubjectedthe disclo- ments are excludedfromthe institutions'(andthe
sureof a MemberStatedocumentto that country's citizens')scope,wouldbe in contradictionof the
prioragreement. TheCourtwentsofar asto refer obligationto interpretsecondarylegislationin con-
generallyto an "obligation" imposedon the institu- formitywith fundamentalrightS.37Moreover,the
tionsto "obtain"a MemberState'sagreementprior recognitionof an unconditionalright of veto for
to disclosinga document.32Notabene,the Court the MemberStateswould"underminetoo seriously
did not link this obligationto any conditionwhat-
soever one; mayhenceassumethat it rejects,along
with a discretionist(proinstitutionauthority)view,
the understandingthat any such obligationarises 30CaseT-168/02, IFAW InternationalerTierschutz-Fonds
GmbH v
Commission [2004] ECR 11-4135, 57.
para.
onlywhena MemberStatehad previouslyrequest- 31TheCourt commented onthedebate
onlyindirectly overthe
ed its consultation. imperative meaningoftheword in Article
"request" 4 (5)by
TheCourtdeducedits findingfroma functional- more
pointing out that the authoritarian wording9(3):
inArticle
documents shallberecordedintheregister
orre-
ist interpretation.If there were no obligationto leasedonlywith theconsentoftheoriginator",
couldbeofno
obtaina MemberState'sprior agreement,the pro- relevancefortheinterpretationArticle
of4 (5)since
that Ar-
ticledefined
a wholly different
fromcontext
visionthat a MemberStatemay"requestnot to dis- ofArticle
4(5),ibid., para.
62.
closea document...without its prior agreement" 32CaseT-168/02, IFAW InternationalerTierschutz-Fonds
GmbH v
wouldrisk "becominga dead letter".33If afforded Commission [2004] ECR 11-4135, 58.
para.
an effectiveright of veto,the Courtconcluded,it is 33Ibid.,
para.58.
evidentthat neitherthe MemberStatenor the insti- 34CaseT-168/02, IFAW InternationalerTierschutz-Fonds
GmbH v
tution concernedare requiredto statereasonsfor Commission [2004] ECR 11-4135, 59.
para.
non-disclosure.34 35Case C-266/05 P,JoseMariaSison
vCouncil, 1February2007,
notyetreported.
It is the merit of the supportingparty (Sweden) 36Opinion ofAdvocate GeneralPoiares
Maduro inCaseC-64/05P,
that this poorlyarguedjudgmentnow standsto be Kingdom ofSweden vCommission,1 8 July
2007, notyetre-
ported, 40.Article
para. 42oftheCharter ofFundamentalRights
quashed by the Court of Justice.Sweden has reads:"AnycitizenoftheUnion,andanynatural orlegalperson
broughtan appealon the groundthat the CFI'srul- or itsregistered
residinghaving office
ina Member hasa
State,
rightofaccessto European Council
Parliament, andCommission
ing on the existenceof a right to veto is an erro- Note,thattheCharter
documents."however, hasnotthestatusof
neous interpretationof the law. After Sison v formallaw,cf.Craig/de EULaw,
Búrca, 4thed.,Oxford2007,
Counci135 it will be the secondoccasionfor the p.412etseqq.
Court of Justiceto hand down a judgmenton 37Opinion ofAdvocate GeneralPoiares
Maduro inCaseC-64/05P,
Kingdom ofSweden vCommission,1 8 July
2007, notyetrepor-
Regulation1049/2001. At the time of writing,the ted,para.42.
 447

the fundamentalright of accessto documentsand regardinga right to officialdocumentscontaina

the transparencyof the Communitydecision-mak- foreignpolicyexceptionhavingthe effectthat all
ingprocess':38 documentstransmittedto the institutionsautomat-
icallyfallwithinthis exception. 40
Thefirstobservationseemsratherartificialsepa-
V The Origin of Documents and the rating a one-trackreality (disclosureor confiden-
Semantics of Information tiality)from double-trackinterpretationon multi-
ple layers of meaning (wherenational law and
Asidefromthis statementof principles,the General EU law cover "autonomous"areas).The second
Advocatemakestwo observations, whichare parti- observation,althoughaccurate, 41 is a strictusensu
cularlyinformativefor the operationalunderstand- economicconsideration whosepertinenceas a prin-
ing of the Regulation.The first observationcon- cipleof legalinterpretationmaybe disputable.Yet,
cerns the objectionof excessivecompetenceas both commentspointto the coreof a problemthat
raisedby the Courtof FirstInstance.Theargument liesbehindthe operabilityof informationin the EU,
is that the rejectionof the MemberStates'right of i.e. in its integratedmodusof decision-making. In
vetowouldamountto a harmonisationmeasure(on fact,uponfurtherinspectionthe accusationof arti-
the accessibility of MemberStatesdocuments)for ficialitymust be reversed.It seemsartificialand
which the Communityhas no mandate. The detrimentalto the proper exerciseof the citizen's
GeneralAdvocateretortsthat the powerof decision right to informationto disintegratethe supplyof
overMemberStatesdocumentsheldby the institu- information(the originof a document -Member
tionsdoesnot implya restrictionon nationalcom- State)from the decision-making process(the EU
petenceor existinglegislationof transparency legislatorsand its executive)and,thus,to dislocate
"Community rulesand nationalrulesremainau- responsibilities.Such disintegrationignores the
tonomous becausetheycoverdifferentareas139 complexitiesof possessingand disposingof infor-
The second observationconcernsa prima facie mation - at leastin an environmentthat connects
practicalconsideration.If it was left for Member interdependentbodies of governmentalactivity.
Statesto ultimatelydecideon the accessibilityof The Europeaninstitutionsgenerallypossessdocu-
documentsoriginatingwith them, the citizens ments for a reason,namelybecausethose docu-
wouldbe facedwith an effectiveloopholefor arbi- ments are motivationfor,or a targetof,a decision
trary decisionsto withholdall kinds of Member taken at Communityor Union level (in casu: a
StatesdocumentsVirtually
: all nationalprovisions CommissionOpinionnecessaryto removespecific
protectionunderthe HabitatsDirective)hence, ; any
third party document in the possessionof a
381bid. Europeaninstitutionhas a Community/Union sig-
39Ibid.,
para.47. nificance(orlegal-semantic field)separatefromthe
40Ibid.,
para.53. claimsand interestsof its placeof origin.Forcom-
41See,forinstance,
Article
27(1of ) the
UKFreedom ofInformationmunicationtheory,the overlapof informationas
Act 2000 ifitsdisclosure underthis
("Information Actwould, or and as semanticconceptis common-
wouldbelikely (b)relations
to,prejudice... between theUnited phenomenon
Kingdom andanyinternational
organisation...");6§Article
1 place.42For legaltheoryand practice,it seemsto
ofLoi(France)
n'78-753 du17juillet
1 978,amended by remainan exoticoddity.
Ordonnance n'2005-650 du6juin 2005 ('Nesontpas commu- The
nicables
lesdocumentsadministratifs laconsultation
dont la ou issue,however,doesnot gowhollyunnoted.
communication atteinte...a
porterait la conduitedelapolitique Indeed, the approach taken by the Court in
extérieure
delaFrance...";§3and ) of the
(1(a) (German) Infor- Hautala43 to - focuson informationratherthan on
mationsfreiheitsgesetz
of 5 September2005("Der Anspruch auf
besteht
Informationszugang wenn
nicht,... dasBekanntwerden documents - attests an early sensitivityto the
derInformation haben
nachteilige Auswirkungen kann auf... anachronisticschemeof the trias author'authority
internationale
Beziehungen..."). /
42Cf.Floridi,
SemanticConceptionsofInformation,inZalta(ed.), document In a more expedient
/ citizen'applicant.
TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(Winter2005 edition). manner the point was recently raised by the
43Case C-353/99P, HautalavCouncil[2001 ] ECR1-9565, EuropeanOmbudsman,NikiforosDiamandouros,
note20.
23;cf. supra,
para.
44Lecture at the of School
AdvancedInternational
Studiesof the speakingon the topic of "Transparency, Account-
JohnHopkins University,
Bologna,17October 2006, accessible ability, and Democracy in the EU". 44
Mr Diamand-
viahttp://ombudsman.europa.eu. ourossummarisedthe problemas follows:
448

"Ifind it hard to explainandjustifythe lackof VI. Conclusion

congruence between,on the onehand,quiteflexi-
ble and unconstrainedinteractionbetweenthe Thereis,thus,to use a topographicterminology, an
nationaland Europeanlevelswhen it comesto external motivationfor the Court to follow its
exercisingpublic authorityand, on the other AdvocateGeneral,and there is an internalone.In
hand,the rigidsegregationof thoselevelswhenit the externalperspective,the Unionis welladvised
comesto transparencyand accountability for the to takean interestin the alignmentof its lawwith
exerciseof publicauthority." the internationalstandardas set by the Aarhus
It is the same terminologythat the General Convention.Internally,it is to mitigatethe effects
Advocateuses in Swedenv Commission, when he of heteronomousdecision-making and dispersed
calls for a "structuralcongruence"between the responsibilityand to reconcilethe transferof com-
"transferof competenceto the Community"and petencewith democraticcontrolthat the residuary
"democratic controlof powerby the citizensof the of the authorshiprule-theMemberStatesright of
MemberStates". 45 And he neatly illustratesthe veto-needsto be dropped.Sincethe text,Regulation
argumentby layingoutthe hypotheticalscenarioof 1049/2001, is inconsistenton the issue,it is nowfor
a fauxrenvoi:If MemberStatesweregivena right the Courtto speakthe law.
of veto and if citizenswere then obligedto apply
for a documentwithin the nationallegal frame-
work,the remainingrightto accessthe information
concernedwouldbe devoidof all substanceandput
to the mercyand fortuityof the MemberStates'
authoritiesto availthemselvesof the foreignpolicy 45Opinion
ofAdvocate
General
Poiares
MaduroinCaseC-64/05P,
ofSweden
Kingdom vCommission,
18 July
2007,notyetre-
exceptionor grantaccessas requested. ported, 53.
para.