Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 – Protection of legal advice – First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 – Protection of the decision-making process – Refusal to grant full access to a legal opinion of the Council’s Legal Service)
Laurent Pech, residing in London (United Kingdom), represented by O. Brouwer and T. McGrath, lawyers,
Kingdom of Sweden, represented by O. Simonsson, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, J. Lundberg, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Shev, H. Eklinder and R. Shahsavan Eriksson, acting as Agents,
Council of the European Union, represented by K. Pavlaki and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents,
APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of 12 February 2019 refusing to grant full access to the opinion of its Legal Service contained in document ST 13593 2018 INIT concerning the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 May 2018 on the protection of the European Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States (COM(2018) 324 final),
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
[2023] ECHR 69
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.