Toegang van het publiek tot documenten - Confirmatief verzoek nr. 22/c/01/09 - Montesquieu Instituut

 

RAAD VANBrussel, 16 oktober 2009 (20.10)

(OR. en)

DE EUROPESE UNIE

13802/09

INF 256 API 114 JUR 383

NOTA I/A-PUNT

van:

de Groep voorlichting

aan: het Coreper (2e deel) / de Raad

nr. vorig doc.: 13801/09

Betreft: Toegang van het publiek tot documenten

• - 

  Confirmatief verzoek nr. 22/c/01/09

In bijlage dezes gaat voor de delegaties een ontwerp-antwoord van de Raad, zoals dat luidt na

bespreking door de Groep voorlichting op 14 oktober 2009, op confirmatief verzoek nr. 22/c/01/09.

De Finse en de Zweedse delegatie gaven te kennen tegen het ontwerp-antwoord te zullen stemmen.

FI: "Zelfs indien bepaalde delen van het document informatie zouden bevatten die niet mag

worden vrijgegeven overeenkomstig artikel 4, lid 1, van Verordening 1049/2001, had een

aanzienlijk uitgebreider toegang tot het document kunnen worden verleend dan die welke is

vastgesteld. De punten 20 en 21 bijvoorbeeld, lijken geen informatie te bevatten waarvan de

vrijgave schadelijk zou kunnen zijn voor de bescherming van juridisch advies of de

bescherming van de internationale betrekkingen in de zin van artikel 4, leden 2 en 1, van

Verordening 1049/2001. Voorts kan Finland zich niet aansluiten bij de redenering die in het

ontwerp-antwoord is gevolgd met betrekking tot de implicaties van het arrest Turco van het

Hof (samengevoegde zaken C-39/05 P en C-52/05 P), noch bij de toepassing van artikel 4,

lid 1, betreffende de internationale betrekkingen als zodanig."

NL: "Nederland gaat akkoord met de conclusie die het secretariaat-generaal heeft getrokken op

basis van de uitzondering betreffende de bescherming van de internationale betrekkingen,

maar niet met de argumentatie die is gevolgd met betrekking tot de bescherming van juridisch

advies, aangezien deze argumentatie niet strookt met het arrest Turco."

SE: "Zweden is het eens met het secretariaat-generaal dat de toegang tot bepaalde delen van het

document moet worden geweigerd. Zweden is evenwel van oordeel dat een ruimere

gedeeltelijke toegang kan worden verleend. Voorts is Zweden het niet volledig eens met de

redenen die door het secretariaat-generaal worden aangevoerd betreffende juridisch advies,

in het bijzonder wat betreft de punten 10-12."

Een meerderheid van de delegaties heeft ingestemd met de openbaarmaking van de uitslag van de

stemming.

BIJLAGE

DRAFT

REPLY ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL ON ..............................

TO CONFIRMATORY APPLICATION No 22/c/01/09

made by e-mail on 28 September 2009,

pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001,

for public access to document 11897/09 (RESTREINT UE)

The Council has considered this confirmatory application under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

(OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43) and Annex II to the Council's Rules of Procedure (Council Decision

2006/683/EC, Euratom - OJ L 285 of 16.10.2006, p. 47) and has come to the following conclusion.

• 1. 

  The applicant refers to document 11897/09 (RESTREINT UE) which comprises an opinion

of the Legal Service of the Council on a Recommendation from the Commission to the

Council to authorise the opening of negotiations between the European Union and the

United States of America for an international agreement to make available to the United

States Treasury Department financial messaging data to prevent and combat terrorism and

terrorist financing.

• 4. 

  The Council has examined the above-mentioned document in the light of the applicant's

arguments.

• 5. 

  The requested document has been drawn up by the Council Legal Service in the course of the

internal discussions within the Council on a Recommendation presented by the Commission

on 18 June 2009 to authorise the opening of negotiations between the European Union and the

United States of America for an international agreement to make available to the United

States Treasury Department financial payment messaging data to prevent and combat

terrorism and terrorist financing. During the internal discussions within the Council on the

Commission's draft Recommendation, the Council Legal Service was requested to formulate

its opinion on the legal basis of the above-mentioned Agreement. The requested document

contains an analysis by the Legal Service of this question. Following internal discussions

within the Council on the Commission's draft, the Council adopted the negotiating directives

for an international agreement between the European Union and the United States on

27 July 2009. The international negotiations on this sensitive matter in the area of the

prevention and combating of terrorism and terrorist financing are currently ongoing.

• a) 

  Protection of international relations
• 6. 

  First of all, the requested document concerns international relations, a protected public

interest under Article 4(1)(a), third indent of the Regulation, since it discusses the legal

In fact, disclosure of the requested document would reveal to the public information relating

to certain provisions in the envisaged Agreement currently under negotiations, and

consequently, would negatively impact on the EU's negotiating position and would also

damage the climate of confidence in the on-going negotiations, which is essential in this

process. In addition, disclosure of the document would also reveal to the EU's negotiating

counterpart elements pertaining to the position to be taken by the EU in the negotiations

which - in the case the legal advice was critical - could be exploited so as to weaken the EU's

negotiating position. This might, in turn, harm the EU's capacity to draw the negotiations to a

successful conclusion.

• 7. 

  For the reasons set out in paragraph 6 above, the Council cannot agree with the applicant that

the exception relating to international relations under Article 4(1)(a), third indent of the

Regulation would be inapplicable in the present case where the requested document relates to

the examination of the legal basis of the envisaged Agreement.

• 8. 

  Furthermore, the Council cannot share the applicant's view that Article 4(1)(a), third indent of

the Regulation would prescribe a balancing of the public interest in the protection of

international relations against other public interests, such as democracy, the rule of law or the

protection of the fundamental rights of citizens. In fact, in contrast with the exceptions in

Article 4(2) and (3) of the Regulation, which provide for a public interest test, the exceptions

set out in Article 4(1), including the protection of international relations, are framed in

mandatory terms. Therefore, once the Council determines that the conditions are met for the

• 9. 

  As regards the applicant's contention that the classification of the requested document as

"RESTREINT UE" would "cancel out" the application of Regulation 1049/2001, the Council

would stress that the applicant's request has been handled in accordance with the provisions

laid down in Regulation 1049/2001, and that the level of classification served as an

illustration of the sensitive contents of the requested document and not as grounds for refusal

of the applicant's request.

• b) 

  Protection of legal advice
• 10. 

  Secondly, the requested document contains legal advice, where the Legal Service analyses the

legal basis and the respective competences of the EU and the European Community to

conclude the Agreement. This sensitive issue, which has an impact on the powers of the

European Parliament in the conclusion of the Agreement, has been subject of divergent

positions between the institutions. Divulgation of the contents of the requested document

would undermine the protection of legal advice, since it would make known to the public an

internal opinion of the Legal Service, intended only for the members of the Council within the

context of the Council's preliminary discussions on the envisaged Agreement. If it were to be

accepted that the legal advice contained in the requested document can be made public, this

might lead the Council to decide not to request written opinions from its Legal Service, since

it could find itself in a situation where it would need to defend the decision it has taken

against a - potentially critical - advice given by its Legal Service.

• 12. 

  In addition, and given the fact that the Council's Legal Service not only assists the institution

in ensuring the legality of the acts it adopts, but also represents it before the Community

courts, disclosure to the public of the internal legal advice contained in the requested

document and given within the context of the Council's internal discussions on the draft

Agreement would seriously undermine the Legal Service's capacity in the future to present

and defend, free from all external influences and on an equal footing with the legal

representatives of the other parties, the Council's position in court proceedings, a position

which may differ from the one previously recommended by the Legal Service.

• 13. 

  In his confirmatory application, the applicant argues that the interpretation and application of

Article 4(2) second indent of the Regulation by the General Secretariat is contrary to the

Court of Justice's judgment in the Turco case 4. The Council does not share the applicant's

view. It would recall in this regard that in the said judgment, the Court interpreted the legal

advice exception in the context of a legislative procedure, as it is apparent from its paragraphs

46-47, 59-60, 66-69 and 71. However, the legal advice contained in the requested document

does not relate to a procedure where the Council acts in its legislative capacity under Article 7

of the Council's Rules of Procedure. For this reason, the facts of the present confirmatory

application must be distinguished from those which gave rise to the judgment of the Court of

Justice of 1 July 2008 in case C-39/05 P.

• 14. 

  Similarly, the Council cannot share the applicant's view that a legal advice drawn up within

the Council in the context of the decision-making procedure leading to the adoption of a

• 15. 

  The Council, after having carefully weighed the Council's interest in the protection of the

internal legal advice given by its Legal Service against the public interest in the disclosure of

the requested document, concluded that the protection of its internal legal advice relating to a

draft international Agreement currently under negotiation outweighs the public interest in

disclosure. The Council cannot agree with the applicant that the fact that the "possible

contents of the envisaged Agreement and views on the competence and legal basis for the

Community to enter into this International Agreement that will bind the Community and

affect the European citizens" would constitute an overriding public interest in disclosure. In

fact, this consideration would apply to any international agreement negotiated by the

Community or the EU, which would, in turn make it impossible for the Council to refuse

public access to an internal legal advice given by its Legal Service in this area.

• 16. 

  Under those conditions, full public access must be refused to the requested document pursuant

to the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) (protection of international relations) and the second

indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 (protection of legal advice). However, the

Council has also examined the possibility to provide partial access to the requested document

in accordance with Article 4(6) of the Regulation. It concluded that partial access may be

granted to the introductory part on page 1, paragraphs1-4 and the first sentence of paragraph 5

of the document which are not covered by any exceptions under Regulation 1049/2001.

______________________

		26 jan '00	COM(2000)30 - Toegang van het publiek tot documenten van het Europees Parlement, de Raad en de Commissie
			Beveiligingsvoorschriften van de Raad