Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2012 - Jurašinović v Council
(Case T-63/10)
(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request for access to certain documents exchanged with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia during proceedings - Refusal to grant access - Risk of undermining the protection of international relations - Risk of undermining the protection of judicial proceedings and legal advice)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: N. Amara‑Lebret, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially C. Fekete and K. Zieleśkiewicz, subsequently C. Fekete and J. Herrmann)
Re:
By way of principal claim, annulment of the Council's decision of 7 December 2009 refusing it access to the Council's decisions relating to the transmission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of the documents which that Tribunal requested in connection with the proceedings relating to Mr Ante Gotovina and all the correspondence exchanged in that connection by the EU Institutions and that Tribunal, including any annexes, and particularly the initial requests for documents from both that Tribunal and Mr Gotovina's lawyers.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
Annuls the Council's decision of 7 December 2009 refusing Mr Ivan Jurašinović access to the Council's decisions relating to the transmission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of the documents which that Tribunal requested in connection with the proceedings relating to Mr Ante Gotovina and all the correspondence exchanged in that connection by the EU Institutions and that Tribunal, including any annexes, and particularly the initial requests for documents from both that Tribunal and Mr Gotovina's lawyers, in so far as he was refused access to correspondence between the Council and that Tribunal, and to documents other than the reports drawn up by the European Community's surveillance mission, annexed to that correspondence;
Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Orders each party to bear its own costs.
____________1 - OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.