We bring together information on the legal frameworks for the right to information from more than 100 countries.
You are here: Home Cases Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP v. European Central Bank

Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP v. European Central Bank

Case number:
T‑590/10
Country:
European Union
Date of decision:
29 November 2012
Court / Arbiter:
General Court; reviewable by Court of Justice ( International / EU )


Decision:

The European Central Bank must refuse access to a document if there is public interest in non-disclosure due to the potential impact on the financial policy of the Union or a Member State. EU law does not provide for weighing that public interest against an “overriding public interest in disclosure.”


Keywords:
Commercial confidentiality (including financial/economic interests of private parties or public authorities)
Deliberations / Advice (including free and frank provision of advice within and among public bodies, executive privilege, internal documents, opinions, analyses, reports)
Economic information (including of public authorities, national government; not of individuals)
Economic policy (ability of the State to manage the economy)
Financial institutions (including banks)
International law
RTI law

Case details:

Facts

A journalist working for Bloomberg Finance LP (Bloomberg News), requested the European Central Bank (ECB) for access to two documents, entitled “The Impact on Government Deficit and Debt from Off-Market Swaps. The Greek Case” and “The Titlos Transaction and Possible Existence of Similar Transactions Impacting on the Euro Area Government Debt or Deficit Levels.” The documents concerned the use of derivative transactions in financing deficits and managing government debt (paras. 1-2). The ECB refused access to the documents on two grounds: 1) public interest in non-disclosure, since disclosure would undermine the economic policy of the European Union (EU) and Greece; and 2) the protection of the ECB’s internal deliberations. As regards the second document only, the refusal was also based on the protection of the commercial interests of a natural or legal person (para. 5).

Decision

Public access to the ECB documents, regulated by Decision 2004/258 (Decision), is subject to certain limits based on reasons of public or private interest. The Court found that on the one hand, the ECB had to explain how disclosure “could specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected by the exception” (para. 42), but on the other hand, it enjoyed a wide discretion when assessing the risk of disclosure to undermine a particular public interest (para. 43).

Regarding the exceptions to public access provided for in Article 4(1) of the Decision – including protection of economic policy – the Court pointed out that where disclosure of a document undermined the public interest, the ECB was obliged to refuse access. EU law did not provide for the weighing of that public interest against an “overriding public interest [in disclosure]” (para. 45).

The Court further addressed the applicant’s argument that the disclosure of the documents would not undermine the economic policy of the Union and Greece. The Court observed that at the time when the refusal was adopted, the European financial markets were in a very vulnerable environment, particularly because of the economic and financial situation of Greece. Although the information contained in the first document was outdated, it could have misled the public and financial market participants (paras. 56-57). Such an error might have had negative consequences on access to the financial markets, particularly for Greece, “and might therefore have affected the effective conduct of economic policy in [Greece] and the Union” (para. 58). Thus, the ECB’s assessment that disclosure of the first document would undermine the economic policy of the EU and Greece was correct. (para. 59).

The second document included the background to the ‘Titlos’2 transaction as well as an analysis carried out by the ECB that concerned the manner in which Greece had used off-market swaps and the consequences of those swaps for existing risks (para. 60). The Court found that since the content of that document was closely connected with that of the first document, the ECB’s assessment was valid for the same reasons (para. 63).

The Court did not find it necessary to examine the second and third pleas concerning the exceptions to the right of access provided for in Article 4(2) (commercial interests), and in Article 4(3) (internal deliberations) of the Decision.

Note

The case was appealed to CJEU on 18 January 2013. In May 2013 Access Info Europe sought leave to intervene in the case.

Resources:

Judgment of the Court.

More information on the case.