Citizenship of the Union? Lessons from Carvel and The Guardian
| Published date | 01 July 1996 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1966.tb02100.x |
| Author | Kenneth A. Armstrong |
| Date | 01 July 1996 |
CASES
Citizenship
of
the Union?
Lessons
from
Cawel and The Guardian
Kenneth A. Armstrong*
Introduction
On
19
October
1995,
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(CFI) ruled in favour of
a
British journalist (supported by his newspaper) in an
action brought against the Council of the European Union (EU) with regard to its
decision to refuse access to Council documents.’ In itself, the judgment marks a
rather limited inroad into the secret world of the Council. However, it is suggested
that the significance of the case lies in its exposure of the ambiguous nature of
Union citizenship and the significance of
the
inter-institutional dialogue as the
Union’s primary mode of operation.
‘Implementing’ transparency: the Code
of
Conduct and Council
Decision
The secrecy of the operations of
the
Council of the EU serves as a symbol of the
disjuncture between political power and democratic accountability in the EU.
While British tabloid newspapers howl their dissent at the perceived doings of the
unelected Commission, the Council quietly and secretly wields power and
influence over the
shape
of Community law. However, with heightened concern as
to the democratic legitimacy of EU decision-making in the wake of the close
Maastricht referenda results, attention has turned to the transparency of EU
decision-making.
At its Birmingham Summit
in
1992,
the
European Council committed the EU to
greater openness and
an
examination of the possibility of improving access to its
institutions and the information held by them.* More concretely, the Commission
and the Council agreed a ‘Code of Conduct’ in December
1993
establishing the
principles to regulate public access to documents held by the Commission and the
C~uncil.~ In this Code, the Commission and the Council agreed
inter alia
to
provide the public with ‘the widest possible access to documents.’
The Council took two specific steps to ‘implement’ the policy of transparency.
First, it amended its own Rules of Procedure4 to establish secrecy as the general
*Lecturer
in
Law,
Keele University.
Thanks
are expressed for the valuable comments of
Jo
Shaw,
Gr6inne de Bdrca
and
an anonymous referee.
I
Case
T-194/94,
John
Carve1 and Guardian Newspapers Ltd
v
Council
of
the European Union.
2
See Bulletin EC
10-1992,
point
1.8
of the Presidency Conclusions.
3
OJ
1993 L340/41.
4
Council Decision
93/662JEC,
OJ
1993 L304/1.
0
The Modem Law Review Limited
1996
(MLR
59:4,
July). Published by Blackwell Publishers,
108
Cowley Road, Oxford
OX4
IJF and
238
Main Street, Cambridge, MA
02142,
USA.
582
To continue reading
Request your trial