The Cjeu Increases Populace Access To Legal Advice On International Treaties

Steve Peers

Introduction

The different approaches betwixt the European Union too the USA equally regards information protection larn out on to resultant inwards considerable friction. Even earlier the Snowden revelations almost the surveillance of European Union citizens past times the American safety services, at that spot were arguments almost American access to airlines’ rider lift records too information almost coin transfers.

Both of these disputes were eventually solved past times agency of a treaty betwixt the USA too the European Union regulating the USA’s access to such information. As regards coin transfers, that access enables the USA to send out its ‘Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme’ (TFTP). While the kickoff version of the treaty regulating access to the TFTP information was rejected past times the European Parliament (EP), a second version was approved afterwards the text was amended.

After the CJEU’s recent judgments concerning data retention too Google Spain, too inwards lite of the pending Europe v Facebook case, it mightiness directly last questioned whether the EU/US treaties on rider information too TFTP are invalid due to breach of the information protection rights guaranteed past times European Union law. However, that’s a topic for a hereafter spider web log post.

In the meantime, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled today on a related question. When the negotiations for the TFTP treaty were underway, the ‘legal base’ of the hereafter treaty (ie, the precise European Union powers to negotiate too conclude it) was disputed, too the Council’s legal service gave a legal sentiment on this issue. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 Member of the European Parliament (MEP), Sophie in’t Veld, requested access to the legal sentiment too was refused, on the grounds that revealing legal advice relating to international negotiations would undermine those negotiations. She challenged this determination earlier the General Court, too was partly successful. 

The Council appealed that judgment to the Court of Justice, too has solely lost inwards today’s judgment. While that judgment significantly increases populace access to documents equally regards legal advice, it soundless leaves intact the possibility of the institutions to reject access equally regards the amount of negotiations. 

The judgment

The EU’s access to documents legislation (Regulation 1049/2001) provides inwards regulation for populace access to European Union documents. It contains exceptions allowing documents to last refused on grounds of (among other grounds) ‘international relations’ too ‘legal advice’. According to the General Court, the Council legal service’s advice on the TFTP treaty could last refused on the erstwhile ground, to the extent that it disclosed noun details of the draft negotiating mandate, since this would harm the EU’s seat past times revealing it to the other side.  

However, to the extent that the legal advice did not reveal the EU’s noun negotiating position, this set down for refusal could non automatically last applied. The General Court took into concern human relationship the fact that an EP resolution had already made this particular legal base of operations number public, too that legal base of operations disputes relating to international treaties tin sack last the dependent plain of advance rulings of the CJEU earlier those treaties come upwards into force.

As regards this kickoff issue, all of the Council’s objections to the judgment were rejected past times the CJEU. The Court ruled that piece legal advice relating to international treaty negotiations did non e'er convey to last disclosed, it could non e'er automatically last refused either. Rather, the Council had to give reasons why disclosing the sentiment to the populace (after redacting all of the information relating to the amount of the negotiations) would undermine international negotiations.

Furthermore, the CJEU ruled that the General Court was correct to apply a to a greater extent than stringent measure of judicial review equally regards this number equally compared to the noun negotiating mandate (where the European Union courts would soundless leave of absence a broad discretion to the European Union institutions).

The minute number was the ‘legal advice’ exception. The CJEU had previously ruled, inwards the Turco case, that access to legal advice could merely last exceptionally refused inwards legislative proceedings. By contrast, the negotiation of an international treaty is an executive power, conferred past times the Treaties upon the European Union Commission or the High Representative for European Union unusual policy.

But nevertheless, the General Court had ruled that the legal advice exception could non last applied inwards this instance either. The Council’s declaration that it needed to maintain legal advice surreptitious to avoid embarrassment was also full general too unsubstantiated. It was irrelevant that the legal advice concerned an international treaty, since the ‘international relations’ exception already addressed that aspect. Moreover, the European Union legislation provides that the utilization of the ‘legal advice’ exception is dependent plain to a populace involvement override. On this point, at that spot was a unopen link to the EU’s legislative activity relating to police pull cooperation too personal information exchange, too waiting until the understanding was inwards forcefulness would rob populace access to information of much of its purpose.  Again, all of the Council’s objections to the judgment were rejected past times the CJEU.

Comments

In principle, this judgment could significantly opened upwards up the fence concerning the legality of planned international treaties. While the CJEU did non dominion that legal advice inwards such cases should last disclosed equally a dominion (as legal advice relating to legislative procedures must), it is directly clear that refusing access to such documents equally a dominion is a breach of the access to documents regulation. The Council (or Commission) must give detailed specific reasons to demo why they remember such documents should last refused because their unloose would undermine the behave of negotiations inwards whatsoever specific case. This is apparently a hard task, since to render those reasons, those institutions would convey to predict the hypothetical actions of 3rd States without disclosing to the applicant much of the details.

Moreover, they must consider the populace involvement inwards access to that legal advice. The General Court’s farther reasoning on this number wasn’t expressly endorsed past times the CJEU, but neither did the CJEU disavow it. So it is arguable that whenever at that spot is a link betwixt the treaty negotiations inwards query too the EU’s legislative activity, and/or the treaty inwards query touches upon an number of broad populace concern similar information protection, too so the populace involvement overrides the Council’s.

On the other hand, dissimilar the seat equally regards the EU legislative process, the CJEU has left intact broad discretion for the institutions to reject to let on their negotiating position, too hence whatsoever details of that seat inwards the legal advice tin sack last redacted. Since at that spot is an obvious unopen link betwixt the legal advice too the noun position, it remains to last seen whether the documents volition soundless last intelligible.

Will the unloose of such documents harm the EU’s negotiating positions equally regards international treaties? In the instance of the USA, sure it has seen all the documents anyway, due to the efficiency of its espionage agencies. That volition also last the case, to roughly extent, alongside roughly or all of the other countries the European Union negotiates with.

As for the European Parliament, the Treaty anyway guarantees it information on all ongoing negotiations, too the CJEU has of late confirmed that this is an enforceable right. However, it is non yet clear how far that correct extends, too inwards particular whether it extends to negotiating mandates. In whatsoever event, it is clear from the judgment that if the EP hears almost a legal dispute concerning a planned treaty, too decides to brand that dispute populace past times referring to it inwards a resolution, the Council’s declaration that the legal advice cannot last disclosed is significantly weakened.

Another argue for the secrecy of the EU’s international negotiations may last to avoid complications arising from populace debate. However, this strategy is largely self-defeating, since the secrecy itself engenders bang-up suspicion from critics almost what the European Union too its negotiating partners mightiness last planning, too so may fuel opposition to the eventual treaty (if the negotiations are successful). Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 clear instance inwards signal is the electrical flow talks on an EU/US costless merchandise agreement.  

It is truthful to say that this physical care for is ultimately democratic, since all international treaties agreed past times the European Union too 3rd States too so convey to last approved past times the Council, too most convey to last approved past times the European Parliament too frequently also national parliaments. However, it is non democratic inwards the total feel of the term, since at that spot is a really limited chance for too opened upwards too populace fence (as compared to the legislative process) earlier the negotiations convey concluded.

Today’s judgment has opened upwards that fence somewhat, past times making it easier to brand a successful asking for the legal advice relating to such negotiations. Sometimes the legal advice may relate to broad issues of populace concern, such equally human rights protection, but sometimes it volition relate to to a greater extent than technical institutional points. The latter points could soundless last relevant politically, since they could determine (for instance) how much ability Member States or the EP convey to block a treaty if they object to the amount of it.

But overall, the judgment volition non satisfy the demand for greater openness of the treaty negotiation procedure, too so the paradoxical resultant of secrecy breeding opposition to treaties volition continue. For those who attempt greater populace involvement inwards the process, getting access to to a greater extent than information on legal advice but no farther information on the amount of the talks is similar existence served a salad when they are hungry for steak.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 3, chapter 24 

Share this post