Top

Published in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

10. Accountability Through Transparency and the Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Author : Marios Costa

Published in: European Yearbook of Constitutional Law 2019

Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

It is often alleged that the EU’s decision-making is insufficiently transparent and that accountability deficits are even growing, something which compromises the Union’s overall legitimacy. In this regard, the EU’s access to documents regime can be considered as an on-going process capable of securing, through a set of binding rules, open performance of the decision-making process. It is here that the role of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) comes into play. Tasked with interpreting the access regime, the CJEU imposed boundaries on the broad derogations to the right. Yet, in terms of accountability, the transparency friendly line of case law has creatively been interpreted in a way that now restricts the access right per se. On the whole, the chapter concludes that the CJEU, with all due respect, contributed to the accountability deficit of the EU’s access to documents regime.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Judicial Independence and Accountability in the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights

next chapter The Last Soldier Standing? Courts Versus Politicians and the Rule of Law Crisis in the New Member States of the EU

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents [2001] OJ L145/43. See also: Adamski 2009, 2012; Alemanno and Stefan 2014; Rossi and Silva 2017.

Fisher 2004, p 495. See also: Arnull and Wincott 2002; Broberg 2002; Curtin 2000, 2013; Curtin and Hart 2010.

Mulgan 2000, p 555.

Davies 2001. See also: Mulgan 2003; Schedler 1997; Tomkins 1999; Vesterdorf 1998.

Bovens 2007, p 447.

Schedler 1997, p 17.

Geradin 2005, p 231; Busuioc 2009; Costa and Peers 2012, 2016; Costa 2017.

Busuioc 2013.

Fisher 2004, p 503.

Frost 2003, p 87; Curtin and Leino 2017; Curtin and Meijer 1995; Davis 1999, 2000.

Mancini and Keeling 1994, p 181.

Court of Justice (hereafter: ECJ), Hautala v Council, 10 July 2001, case C-353/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:392, opinion of Advocate-General Leger at 52.

Brandsma et al. 2008, p 819.

Harden 2001, p 165.

Kierkegaard 2009, pp 3–4.

ECJ, Interporc v Commission, 7 December 1999, case T-92/98, ECLI:EU:T:1999:308, para 39.

The Danes rejected the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in a referendum, while the French only voted to approve the treaty by a narrow majority. Lengthy discussions occurred in the UK Parliament and in Germany ratification was challenged before the Constitutional Court.

Peers 2002b.

ECJ, Kingdom of Sweden v Commission of the European Communities and Others, 18 July 2007, case C 64/05 P, ECLI:EU:C:2007:433, opinion of Advocate-General Maduro, para 7.

ECJ, Agrana Zucker und Stärke v Commission, 7 June 2001, case T-187/99, ECLI:EU:T:2001:149 and order of the Court in ECJ, Agrana Zucker und Stärke v Commission, 5 November 2002, case C-321/01 P, ECLI:EU:C:2002:635.

[1993] OJ L 156/5 and [1993] OJ L 166/4.

Decision 93/731 [1993] OJ L 340/43.

Decision 94/90 [1994] OJ L 340/41.

OJ 1998 C295/1 (Court of Auditors); OJ 1997 C243/13 (European Investment Bank); OJ 1999 L110/30 (European Central Bank); the European Agency for Health and Safety at work; Europol; OJ 1997 L339/18 (Economic and Social Committee); OJ 1997 351/70 (Committee of the Regions); OJ 1998 L90/43 (European Monetary Institute); European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (cadefop); OJ 1997 C282/5 (European Environment Agency); OJ 1998 C46/5 (Translation Centre for Bodies of the European Union); European Monetary Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction; European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.

Peers 2002b.

De Leeuw 2003.

ECJ, Carlsen v Council, 3 March 1998, case T-610/97 R, ECLI:EU:T:1998:48. The President of the Court ruled that the mandatory exceptions regarding the protection of the public interest were not exhaustive and that an exception relating to the stability of the Community legal order which covers also the legal advice given by the legal service of the institutions existed.

ECJ, Carvel v Council, 19 October 1995, case T-194/94, ECLI:EU:T:1995:183.

Harlow 2002. See also the open letter addressed to the Secretary General of the Council by the European Federation of Journalists dated 30 April 1996 mentioning ‘grave reservations about the Council’s interpretation and practice of the code of conduct concerning access to documents’.

The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland have consistently hard-pressed for greater openness within the Union gaining strong inspiration from their national laws where the notion of citizens’ rights is underscored.

ECJ, Netherlands v Council, 30 April 1996, case C-58/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:171.

It must be noted here that it was only in 1997 that the EP adopted rules regarding access to its documents.

ECJ, WWF v Commission, 5 March 1997, case T-105/95, ECLI:EU:T:1997:26. This was the first judgment on access to documents rules concerning the Commission. It established that the internal institutional rules on access to documents are capable of conferring rights on citizens and imposing obligations on the Commission. The CFI also ruled for the first time on the public interest exception concerning inspections and investigations and ruled that the documents relating to investigations which may lead to an infringement procedure according to Article 226 of the EC Treaty, now Art 258 TFEU, satisfy the conditions that must be met by the Commission in order to rely on the public interest exception according to Article 4(1) of the Code of Conduct.

ECJ, Svenska Journalistforbundet v Council, 17 June 1998, case T-174/95 ECLI:EU:T:1998:127.

ECJ, Carvel v Council, 19 October 1995, case T-194/94, ECLI:EU:T:1995:183 and ECJ, WWF v Commission, 5 March 1997, case T-105/95 ECLI:EU:T:1997:26.

ECJ, Hautala v Council, 6 December 2001, case C-353/99 P, ECLI:EU:C:2001:661.

ECJ, Kuijer (II) v Council, 7 February 2002, case T-211/00, ECLI:EU:T:2002:30, para 55.

ECJ, Svenska Journalistforbundet v Council, 17 June 1998, case T-174/95, ECLI:EU:T:1998:127; ECJ, WWF v Commission, 5 March 1997, case T-105/95, ECLI:EU:T:1997:26; ECJ, Interporc (I) v Commission, 6 February 1998, case T-124/96, ECLI:EU:T:1998:25.

ECJ, Van der Wal v Commission, 19 March 1998, case T-83/96, ECLI:EU:T:1998:59; ECJ, Interporc (I) v Commission, 6 February 1998, case T-124/96, ECLI:EU:T:1998:25.

ECJ, Kuijer (II) v Council, 7 February 2002, case T-211/00, ECLI:EU:T:2002:30.

ECJ, Hautala v Council, 6 December 2001, case C-353/99 P, ECLI:EU:C:2001:661; ECJ, Hautala v Council, 19 July 1999, case T-14/98, ECLI:EU:T:1999:157.

Heliskoski and Leino 2006. See also: Diamandouros 2008; Guggenbuhl 1998; Flanagan 2007; Leino 2011; Osterdahl 1998.

Although in principle the beneficiaries of the right of access to documents are EU citizens and residents, Article 2(2) of the Regulation grants discretion to the EU institutions bound by it to grant access to any natural or legal person not residing or not having its registered office in a Member State. The institutions responded positively to this option. See Decision 2001/840 of the Council OJ 2001, L313/40, Decision 2001/937 of the Commission OJ 2001, L 345/94 and the Decision of the EP OJ 2001, L 374 /I.

Peers 2002b; Kranenborg 2006.

ECJ, Borax v Commission, 11 March 2009, caseT-121/05, ECLI:EU:T:2009:64.

Article 2(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 [2001] OJ L 145/43.

Peers 2002b; De Leeuw 2003.

ECJ, Bavarian Lager v Commission, 8 November 2007, case T-194/04, ECLI:EU:T:2007:334.

Ibid.

ECJ, Commission v Bavarian Lager, 29 June 2010, case C-28/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2010:378.

ECJ, Hautala v Council, 19 July 1999, case T-14/98, ECLI:EU:T:1999:157. This has been confirmed as regards the Regulation, see ECJ, Sison v Council, 1 February 2007, case C-266/05 P ECLI:EU:C:2007:75.

ECJ, Borax v Commission, 11 March 2009, case T-121/05, ECLI:EU:T:2009:64.

ECJ, Sison v Council, 26 April 2005, joined cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03, ECLI:EU:T:2005:143.

According to settled case-law, the institutions enjoy wide discretion in the context of a decision denying access based on the protection of public interest regarding international relations. See ECJ, Hautala v Council, 19 July 1999, case T-14/98, ECLI:EU:T:1999:157.

ECJ, Sison v Council, 26 April 2005, joined cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03, ECLI:EU:T:2005:143, para 47.

ECJ, Sison v Council, 1 February 2007, case C-266/05 P, ECLI:EU:C:2007:75.

Kranenborg and Voermans 2005. See also: Peers 2002a; Kranenborg 2008.

ECJ, Turco v Council, 23 November 2004, case T-84/03, ECLI:EU:T:2004:339.

ECJ, Association de la presse internationale asbl (API) v Commission, 12 September 2007, case T-36/04, ECLI:EU:T:2007:258.

ECJ, Sweden and Turco v Council, 1 July 2008, joined cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P, ECLI:EU:C:2008:374.

ECJ, Turco v Council, 23 November 2004, case T-84/03, ECLI:EU:T:2004:339.

The other two intervening governments were Denmark and Sweden.

ECJ, Turco v Council, 23 November 2004, case T-84/03, ECLI:EU:T:2004:339, para 36.

Ibid., para 57.

Ibid., para 74.

Ibid., para 79.

ECJ, Interporc v Commission, 7 December 1999, case T-92/98, ECLI:EU:T:1999:308, para 39.

ECJ, Turco v Council, 23 November 2004, case T-84/03, ECLI:EU:T:2004:339.

Ibid., para 75.

ECJ, Sweden and Turco v Council, 1 July 2008, joined cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P, ECLI:EU:C:2008:374. Arnull 2009.

Ibid., para 37.

Ibid., para 38.

Ibid., para 40.

Ibid., para 42.

Ibid., para 44.

Ibid., para 59.

Ibid., para 74.

ECJ, Sophie in ’t Veld v Commission, 19 March 2013, case T-301/10, ECLI:EU:T:2013:135; ECJ, Council v Sophie in ’t Veld, 3 July 2014, case C-350/12 P ECLI:EU:C:2014:2039.

ECJ, Sweden and Turco v Council, 1 July 2008, joined cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P, ECLI:EU:C:2008:374, para 50.

ECJ, Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, 29 June 2010, case C-139/07 P, ECLI:EU:C:2010:376; ECJ, Commission v Agrofert Holding a.s., 28 June 2012, case C-477/10 P ECLI:EU:C:2012:394; ECJ, Commission v Editions Odile Jacob SAS, 28 June 2012, case C-404/10 P, ECLI:EU:C:2012:393; ECJ, Guido Strack v Commission, 15 January 2013, case T-392/07, ECLI:EU:T:2013:8.

ECJ, Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, 29 June 2010, case C-139/07 P, ECLI:EU:C:2010:376, para 61.

ECJ, LPN and Finland v Commission, 14 November 2013, case C-514/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:738.

ECJ, LPN v Commission, 9 September 2011, case T-29/08, ECLI:EU:T:2011:448, para 126.

ECJ, LPN and Finland v Commission, 14 November 2013, case C-514/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:738, para 35.

Ibid., para 65.

ECJ, Sweden v Commission, 18 July 2007, case C-64/05 P, ECLI:EU:C:2007:433, opinion of Advocate-General Maduro, para 40.

Adamski A (2009) How wide is ‘the widest possible’? Judicial interpretation of the exceptions to the right of access to official documents revisited. CMLRev 46:521–549

Adamski D (2012) Approximating a workable compromise on access to official documents: The 2011 developments in the European courts. CMLRev 49:521–558

Alemanno A, Stefan O (2014) Openness at the Court of Justice of the European Union: Toppling a Taboo. CMLRev 51:97–139

Arnull A (2009) Joined Cases C-39/05 P & C-52/05 P, Sweden and Turco v. Council, judgment of the Grand Chamber of 1 July 2008. CMLRev 46:1219–1238

Arnull A, Wincott D (2002) Accountability and Legitimacy in the EU. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Bovens M (2007) Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. ELJ 13:447–468CrossRef

Brandsma G, Curtin D, Meijer A (2008) How Transparent are EU “Comitology” Committees in Practice? ELJ 14:819–838CrossRef

Broberg M (2002) Access to Documents: A General Principle of Community Law. ELRev 27:194–205

Busuioc M (2009) Accountability, Control and Independence: The Case of European Agencies. ELJ 15:599–615CrossRef

Busuioc M (2013) European Agencies Law and Practices of Accountability. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Cooper H (2016) Where European democracy goes to die. https://www.politico.eu/article/where-european-democracy-goes-to-die-european-parliament/ Accessed 12 July 2016

Costa M (2017) The Accountability Gap in EU Law. Routledge, Oxford

Costa M, Peers S (2016) Beware of Courts Bearing Gifts. NJB 91:1107–1116

Curtin D (2000) Citizens’ fundamental right of access to EU information: An evolving digital passepartout? CMLRev 37:7–41

Curtin D (2013) Official secrets and the negotiation of international agreements: Is the EU executive unbound? CMLRev 50:423–457

Curtin D, Hart P (2010) The Real World of EU Accountability, What Deficit? Oxford University Press, Oxford

Curtin D, Leino P (2017) In search of transparency for EU law-making: Trilogues on the cusp of dawn. CMLRev 54:1673–1712

Curtin D, Meijer H (1995) The principle of open government in Schengen and the European Union: Democratic retrogression? CMLRev 32:391–442

Davies A (2001) Accountability: A Public Law Analysis of Government by Contract. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Davis R (1999) Public access to community documents: A fundamental human right? EIOP 3

Davis R (2000) The Court of Justice and the right of public access to Community-held documents. ELRev 25:303–309

De Leeuw M (2003) The Regulation on public access to EP, Council and Commission Documents in the European Union: Are citizens better off? ELRev 28:324–348

Diamandouros N (2008) Contribution of the European Ombudsman to the public hearing on the revision of Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to documents. www.statewatch.org/news/2008/jun/eu-ep-ombudsman-on-com-proposals-speech.pdf Accessed 9 June 2008

Fisher E (2004) The EU in the Age of Accountability. OJLS 24:495–515CrossRef

Flanagan A (2007) EU Freedom of Information: Determining where the Interest Lies. EPL 13:595–632

Frost A (2003) Restoring Faith in Government: Transparency Reform in the United States and the EU. EPL 9:87–104

Geradin D (2005) The Development of European Regulatory Agencies: Lessons from the American Experience. In: Geradin et al (eds) Regulation through Agencies in the EU. A New Paradigm of European Governance. Edward Elgar, London, pp 215–245

Guggenbuhl A (1998) A Miracle Formula or an Old Powder in New Packaging? Transparency and Openness after Amsterdam. In: Deckmyn V, Thomson I (eds) Openness and Transparency in the European Union. EIPA, Maastricht, pp 9–38

Harden I (2001) Citizenship and Information. EPL 7:165–193

Harlow C (2002) Accountability in the European Union. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Heliskoski J, Leino P (2006) Darkness at the Break of Noon: The Case-law on Regulation No. 1049/2001 on Access to Documents. CMLRev 43:735–782

Kierkegaard S (2009) Open Access to public documents – More secrecy, less transparency! CLSR 25:3–27

Kranenborg H (2006) Is it Time to Revise the European Regulation on Public Access to Documents? EPL 12:251–274

Kranenborg H (2008) Access to documents and data protection in the European Union: On the public nature of personal data. CMLRev 45:1079–1114

Kranenborg H, Voermans W (2005) Access to Information in the European Union: A Comparative Analysis of EC and Member State Legislation. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

Leino P (2011) Just a little sunshine in the rain: The 2010 case law of the European Court of Justice on access to documents. CMLRev 48:1215–1252

Mancini F, Keeling D (1994) Democracy and the European Court of Justice. MLR 57:175–190CrossRef

Mulgan R (2003) Holding Power to Account, Accountability in Modern Democracies. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonCrossRef

Mulgan R (2000) Accountability: An Ever-Expanding Concept? PA 78:555–573

Osterdahl I (1998) Openness v. Secrecy: Public Access to Documents in Sweden and the European Union. ELRev 23:335–356

Peers S (2002a) From Maastricht to Laeken: The Political Agenda of Openness and Transparency in the EU. In: Deckmyn V (ed) Increasing Transparency in the European Union, EIPA, Maastricht, pp 7–33

Peers S (2002b) The New Regulation on Access to Documents: A Critical Analysis, YEL 21:385–442CrossRef

Peers S, Costa M (2012) Accountability for Delegated and Implementing Acts after the Treaty of Lisbon (2012). ELJ 18: 427–460CrossRef

Peers S, Costa M (2016) Reassessing the Accountability of European Union Decentralized Agencies: Mind the Independence Gap. EPL 22: 645–665

Rossi L, Silva P (2017) Public Access to Documents in the EU. Hart Publishing, Oxford

Schedler A (1997) Conceptualizing Accountability. In: Schedler A (ed) The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. Lynne Rienner, Boulder, pp 13–28

Tomkins A (1999) Transparency and the Emergence of a European Administrative Law. YEL 19:217–256

Vesterdorf B (1998) Transparency - Not just a vogue word. ILJ 22:902–929

Title: Accountability Through Transparency and the Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Author: Marios Costa
Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press
Book: European Yearbook of Constitutional Law 2019
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-358-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-6265-359-7

Copyright Year: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-359-7_10

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"