Action brought on 31 July 2013 – Miettinen v Council

(Case T-395/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Samuli Miettinen (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer and E. Raedts, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision of the Council of 21 May 2013 refusing to grant full access to Document 12979/12 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), as communicated to the applicant on 21 May 2013 in a letter bearing the reference “06/c/02/1 3” (the contested decision) as well as its renewed refusal of 23 July 2013;

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 4(2) 2nd indent and Article 4(3) 1st subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the contested decision is based on a wrong interpretation and application of the said provisions, which relate to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice and to the protection of the on-going decision-making process respectively:

Firstly, the Council failed to demonstrate that disclosure of Document 12979/12 prejudices its legal service’s ability to defend it in future legal proceedings, and undermines the legislative process;

Secondly, the Council failed to demonstrate that Document 12979/12 is particularly sensitive and/or of a wide scope justifying the setting aside of the presumption favouring disclosure of legal opinions in the legislative context;

Thirdly, the Council’s theory of harm is purely hypothetical. It is factually, as well as legally, unfounded considering that the content of the advice contained in Document 12979/12 was already in the public domain when the contested decision was taken; and

Fourthly, the Council failed to apply the overriding public interest test when invoking Article 4(3) 1st subparagraph when it considered only the perceived risks to its decision-making process associated to disclosure and not the positive effects of such disclosure, inter alia, for the legitimacy of the decision-making process and failed to apply the test when invoking Article 4(2) 2nd indent.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state adequate reasons under Article 296 TFEU, as the Council did not fulfil its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the contested decision.