European Ombudsman
Related documents
1. The complainant is a German journalist.
2. On 2 March 2010, he submitted a request to the European Commission for access to a report on the outcome of meetings, held in February 2010, between the delegation of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (henceforth referred to as the 'High Representative') and representatives of the Russian Federation.
3. The Commission registered the complainant's request on 4 March 2010 and informed him that, in line with Regulation 1049/2001[1], he would receive a reply within 15 working days.
4. On 26 March 2010, the complainant reminded the Commission that he had not yet received a reply, even though the period of 15 working days had already expired. On the same day, he received the following reply, which was sent by a Member of the cabinet of the High Representative:
"I am afraid we can't help you much with your request. The bilateral meeting of the High Representative Catherine Ashton in Moscow with the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Mr Lavrov, was part of the so-called Foreign Ministerial political dialogue between the EU and Russia. Reports from these meetings have a restricted distribution."
5. On 26 March 2010 also, the complainant contacted the Commission again and asserted that Regulation 1049/2001 does not exempt particular categories of documents from being accessed. The Commission therefore would have to give reasons as to why the requested document could not be released, be it entirely or partially. He stated that he expected to receive a reply satisfying the criteria of Article 7(1) of Regulation 1049/2001[2] shortly.
6. On 30 March 2010, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman (complaint 816/2010/BEH). He alleged that the Commission failed to deal with his request for access properly. He claimed, among other things, that the Commission should undertake an individual examination of the requested document and inform him of the outcome of that examination.
7. Article 2(4) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman requires complainants to make appropriate administrative approaches to the institution concerned before they submit a complaint to the Ombudsman. In cases concerning access to documents, making appropriate approaches means that the procedures outlined in Regulation 1049/2001 need to be complied with. Article 8 of Regulation 1049/2001 gives applicants the right to complain to the Ombudsman following a negative reply to a confirmatory application or failure to reply thereto. Given that the complainant had not yet submitted a confirmatory application for access, he had not exhausted the procedural means provided by Regulation 1049/2001 before turning to the Ombudsman. His complaint was thus inadmissible on the basis of Article 2(4) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman.
8. On 5 May 2010, the complainant submitted the present complaint to the Ombudsman. He pointed out that he submitted a confirmatory application for access on 13 April 2011 but that, apart from an acknowledgement of receipt, he did not receive a reply.
9. On 11 May 2010, the complainant forwarded the Commission's decision on his confirmatory application, which he had received on that same date, to the Ombudsman. In its decision, the Commission upheld its refusal to grant access.
10. In his complaint, the complainant submitted the following allegations and claim:
(1) Contrary to Regulation 1049/2001 and Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, the Commission failed to deal with his request for access to documents properly. In particular, it failed: (i) to process his request for access within the time frames provided in Regulation 1049/2001; and (ii) to grant him access to the requested documents or provide a convincing explanation as to why no such access could be granted.
(2) By failing to provide an explicit and reasoned reply to his initial application for access within the time frame provided in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the Commission effectively deprived him of his right to challenge the Commission's position by submitting a confirmatory application.
The Commission should grant access to the document concerned or provide a convincing explanation as to why no such access can be granted.
11. The complaint was forwarded to the President of the Commission for an opinion. The Commission submitted its opinion on 11 October 2010. This opinion was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations, which he sent on 3 November 2010.
12. Having examined the Commission's opinion and the complainant's observations, the Ombudsman concluded that he needed further information to deal with this case. Thus, on 22 February 2011, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to allow its services to inspect the document to which the complainant had requested access. Subsequently, the Commission informed the Ombudsman's services that, following the establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS)[3], the responsibility for the present complaint was now with that service.
13. The inspection of the requested document took place on 17 May 2011. A copy of the report on this inspection was sent to the High Representative and a further copy was sent to the complainant for observations.
14. The complainant did not submit any observations on the inspection report.
15. The Ombudsman opened his inquiry and asked the Commission for an opinion on the complaint. The Commission duly submitted its opinion. Following the Ombudsman's request for an inspection of the document to which the complainant had requested access, the Commission informed him that the responsibility for the present complaint was now with the EEAS. Subsequently, the EEAS contacted the Ombudsman's services in order to set a date for the inspection. The EEAS subsequently received the Ombudsman's representative and allowed him to inspect the relevant document. Following this inspection, the Ombudsman informed the EEAS and the Commission, as well as the complainant, that he would henceforth consider his inquiry to be directed towards the EEAS. None of the parties concerned objected to this decision. In view of these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that, in the course of his inquiry, the EEAS has taken responsibility for the present complaint. He further understands that the EEAS has implicitly accepted that the opinion submitted by the Commission also reflects the EEAS' position on the complaint. With this in mind, reference will be made henceforth to the 'institution concerned', without distinguishing between the Commission and the EEAS.
16. Given their factual connection, the complainant's first allegation and his claim will be considered together.
17. The complainant alleged that, contrary to Regulation 1049/2001 and Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, the institution concerned failed to deal with his request for access to documents properly. In particular, it failed: (i) to process his request for access within the time frames provided in Regulation 1049/2001; and (ii) to grant him access to the requested documents or provide a convincing explanation as to why no such access could be granted. He claimed that the institution concerned should grant access to the document concerned or provide a convincing explanation as to why no such access can be granted.
18. In its decision on the complainant's confirmatory application, the institution concerned stated that the complainant requested access to a section on visa matters contained in an internal note drafted by the Council's Secretariat-General. That note recorded a ministerial meeting between the High Representative and the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as a meeting between the High Representative and the Russian President, which took place in February 2010. The institution concerned based its refusal to grant access on the third point contained in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation 1049/2001, which reads as follows:
"The institutions shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of:
(a) the public interest as regards:
(...)
— international relations, (...)."
Given that the section of the document to which the complainant requested access was covered in its entirety by the aforesaid exception, the institution concerned stated that partial access could not be granted either.
19. More specifically, the institution concerned argued that:
(i) the issue of visa matters had not yet been settled during the negotiations between the Russian Federation and the EU. The requested document recorded the views expressed by the parties to the negotiations as well as their different approaches;
(ii) the note was to be considered as an internal report, in relation to which there had been no consultation with the Russian authorities. Its sole purpose was to inform persons in charge of the issue at the Member States' Permanent Representations, the Council's Secretariat-General and the Commission of the current state of affairs in relation to outstanding issues so as to facilitate the preparation of follow-up meetings. Given that the note touched upon politically sensitive issues, it was classified as 'EU Restricted' and distributed on a 'need to know' basis only;
(iii) disclosure, even of parts of the note only, would jeopardise the mutual trust that exists between the Russian Federation and the EU;
(iv) visa matters are to be considered as a highly sensitive matter from the viewpoint of the Member States. Given that the Member States' opinions on the Russian position were still being sounded out, disclosure would weaken the EU's negotiation position.
20. As regards the procedural aspect of his allegation, the complainant submitted that the institution concerned failed to process his initial application for access within the time-period provided in Regulation 1049/2001, given that the e-mail of 26 March 2010 was: (i) sent outside that time frame; and (ii) could not be considered to be a decision on his initial application for access. According to the complainant, the institution concerned also failed to process his confirmatory application for access within the time frame stated in Regulation 1049/2001, without giving valid reasons in line with that regulation.
21. In support of the substantive aspect of his allegation and his claim, the complainant argued that the justification of the refusal to grant access could not be sustained. According to him, the document at issue records positions which were known to both parties to the negotiations and did not reveal the EU's negotiation strategy. Disclosure could therefore not endanger the success of the negotiations. The complainant also considered that the institution concerned did not give concrete indications that disclosure would jeopardise the climate of mutual trust or that Russia had insisted on confidentiality. In case of doubt, the institution concerned could have consulted the Russian Federation in order to ascertain whether the document could be disclosed. As regards the Member States' positions to which the institution concerned referred, the complainant noted that they did not appear to form part of the requested document. At any rate, he had not requested access to them. He also observed that Member States could not restrict access to documents held by the institutions. The complainant forwarded to the Ombudsman a copy of the minutes of a joint press conference given by the German Chancellor and the Russian President. In the complainant's view, it transpired from these minutes that there was a great public interest in visa matters and that the Russian Federation made no secret of its relevant opinions. According to him, it followed from these minutes that the parties to the negotiations had not agreed on confidentiality.
22. In its opinion, the institution concerned acknowledged that it did not handle the complainant's initial application for access in line with the procedural requirements laid down in Regulation 1049/2001. Thus, its reply: (i) was not sent within the time limits set by Regulation 1049/2001; (ii) did not contain a detailed reasoning in support of the refusal to grant access; (iii) did not inform the complainant of his right to submit a confirmatory application; and (iv) was in English, while the complainant's request was in German; albeit with a translation into English. The institution concerned presented its apologies for its failure to comply with the aforesaid procedural requirements as regards the initial request for access.
23. As regards the complainant's confirmatory application, however, the institution concerned submitted that it had been handled in accordance with Regulation 1049/2001, given that the institution concerned had informed him of an extension of the deadline in line with Article 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 and replied within that new deadline. It specified that Article 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 only refers by way of example to certain grounds justifying an extension, without that list being exhaustive. The institution concerned also submitted that due to the workload of the translation services, translations could take up to three weeks, as was the case with the decision on the complainant's confirmatory application for access.
24. In relation to the reasons for its refusal to grant access, the institution concerned reiterated that disclosure would undermine the protection of the relations between the EU and the Russian Federation. First, it would put in the public domain comments and assessments concerning the visa issue which were only intended for the attention of persons in the Member States and the EU institutions involved in EU-Russia relations and were not shared with the Russian delegation. Second, disclosure would weaken the EU's negotiating position vis-à-vis the Russian authorities on the visa issue.
25. In addition to the information provided in its decision on the complainant's confirmatory application, the institution concerned specified that the complainant requested access to a so-called 'COREU' document. Documents of that type were drafted by Member State diplomats and circulated among the Permanent Representations of Member States, the Secretariat-General of the Council and the Commission services involved in external relations. The institution concerned also submitted that the document covers issues relating to the incumbent's double role of High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission for which reason it had also consulted the Council's Secretariat-General before deciding on the complainant's request. The Council's Secretariat-General had advised against disclosure. The institution concerned moreover pointed out that the visa issue is one of the pending issues in the negotiations between the EU and the Russian Federation and that the document does not reflect public statements.
26. In his observations, the complainant recalled that his request for access was drafted in German. While it was true that he had provided the institution concerned with a courtesy translation into English, this could not imply that the institution concerned could choose the language of the procedure. The complainant added that receiving a reply in the English language would not normally be a problem if access was to be granted. In the case of a refusal to grant access, however, it was essential for an applicant to understand the detailed reasons for that decision. Therefore, such a decision would, as a rule, have to be in an applicant's mother tongue, provided that the latter was an official language of the EU. The complainant added, however, that he considered this aspect of his complaint to be settled to the extent that the institution concerned had acknowledged mistakes in handling his application.
27. As regards the substance of the refusal to grant access, the complainant argued that the institution concerned relied on the category of the document to which he had requested access. However, this was not in line with Regulation 1049/2001, which required the institutions to describe, in as detailed a manner as possible, the actual contents of a document and explain why these contents could not be made public. According to the complainant, the institution concerned did not undertake the requisite analysis. He also submitted that pursuing such an analysis was important; so as to be able to decide whether partial access could be granted. In the given context, he recalled that he was only interested in a short section of the document concerning the visa issue. In view of the above, he asked the Ombudsman to call on the institution concerned to grant partial access or to give supporting reasons in support of its refusal to grant access.
28. The inspection showed that the document is a 'COREU' document, which is marked as 'EU restricted'. It records a Ministerial Meeting and a Meeting between the President of the Russian Federation and the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, which took place in Moscow on 24 February 2010. The document consists of 8 pages in total.
29. As regards its contents, the first one and a half pages of the document provide a summary of the main points made in the course of the aforesaid meetings. Those main points essentially relate to various foreign policy issues and include the issue of visa requirements for travelling between the EU and the Russian Federation. In relation to the latter issue, that section gives a brief overview of the positions taken by the EU and the Russian Federation in the course of the meetings, which were held on 24 February 2010.
30. The main section of the document provides a detailed overview of the opinions exchanged in relation to each of the main points mentioned above. That section is further subdivided into sections on: (i) the meeting with Minister Lavrov (covering approximately 6 pages in total); and (ii) the meeting with President Medvedev (covering less than one page). The visa issue is dealt with in section (i) which records, on approximately one third of a page, the positions of the Russian Federation and the EU, and their different approaches on how to proceed in relation to it.
31. In the following, the Ombudsman will analyse whether the institution concerned handled the complainant's request for access properly.
32. In his initial application, the complainant requested access to the report of the outcome of the meetings referred to in paragraph 2 of the present decision to the extent that these meetings concerned the facilitation of travelling between the EU Member States and the Russian Federation and, in particular, the abolition of the current visa requirement. In its decision on the complainant's confirmatory application, the institution concerned took the view that the complainant had thus requested access to part of the document only; that is to say, the section of the report that dealt with visa matters and which recorded a Ministerial Meeting and a Meeting between the President of the Russian Federation and the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission. In the course of the inquiry, the complainant confirmed that his request for access only concerns the aforesaid section of the document that deals with visa matters. The inspection has shown that the document deals with visa matters in: (i) the introductory summary; and (ii) the section reporting on a meeting with Minister Lavrov. In view of the general nature of the introductory summary and the explanations provided by the complainant, the Ombudsman understands that the complainant wished to be granted access to the section on visa issues contained in the report on the meeting with Minister Lavrov.
33. The complainant's allegation under review here encompasses both procedural and substantive aspects. Before addressing the substance of the position of the institution concerned, the Ombudsman will look into the procedural aspects of the handling of the complainant's initial and confirmatory applications.
34. In relation to the complainant's initial application, the Ombudsman notes that the institution concerned acknowledged that it failed to handle it properly and offered its apologies to the complainant. In his observations, the complainant submitted that his complaint had been settled to the extent that the institution concerned had acknowledged mistakes in handling his application. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that this aspect of the complaint has been settled to the complainant's satisfaction.
35. Turning to its handling of the complainant's confirmatory application for access, the Ombudsman recalls that, according to Article 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, confirmatory applications for access to documents "shall be handled promptly", the time period to this effect being 15 working days. It is undisputed that the institution concerned did not deal with the complainant's confirmatory application within that deadline.
36. However, the institution concerned submitted that it had validly extended the relevant deadline by 15 working days, in line with Article 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.
37. Pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, in "exceptional cases, for example in the event of an application relating to a very long document or to a very large number of documents", the time limit of 15 working days may be extended by 15 working days, if the applicant is informed in advance and detailed reasons are given.
38. The institution concerned indicated that the extension of time was based on the ground that it required more time for translating its decision into German, the language in which the request for access had been made. The Ombudsman shares the view of the institution concerned that Article 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 does not provide for an exhaustive list of cases in which an institution may exceptionally extend the normal deadline by 15 working days. This notwithstanding, the Ombudsman fails to see how the need to translate a decision into German – a need which, at the time of receiving the complainant's confirmatory application, must have been obvious to the institution concerned – could be considered as constituting an "exceptional case" within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.
39. It follows from the above that the institution concerned did not provide a valid reason for its decision to extend the deadline for replying to the confirmatory application. It follows that it failed to process the confirmatory application within the time frames provided in Regulation 1049/2001. This constitutes an instance of maladministration.
40. Turning to the substance of the decision to refuse access, the Ombudsman recalls that the institution concerned relied on one of the exceptions contained in Article 4(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, namely, the need to protect the public interest as regards international relations. Unlike the exceptions contained in Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, which require an institution to balance the interests protected therein with a possible public interest in disclosure, Article 4(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 does not provide for such a balancing of interests. Thus, if disclosure of a document would undermine one of the interests protected by Article 4(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, an institution must refuse access.
41. The Ombudsman, moreover, recalls that exceptions to the right of access to documents must be interpreted and applied strictly, given that they derogate from the principle of giving citizens the widest possible access[4]. However, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the interests protected by Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation 1049/2001 are of a particularly essential and sensitive nature. The Court of Justice has emphasised the complex and delicate nature of an institution's decision on whether to grant access, which calls for the exercise of particular care and, therefore, requires a margin of appreciation[5]. According to the case-law, an institution must be recognised to enjoy a wide discretion in determining whether disclosure could undermine the protected public interest[6].
42. It should be noted, however, that an institution that decides not to grant access must provide a satisfactory explanation as to how access to that document could specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected[7].
43. In the present case, the institution concerned explained that the section of the relevant document to which the complainant wished to be given access records the views expressed by the parties to the negotiations as well as their different approaches on the visa issue. It thus provided a succinct description of the contents of the said section of the document. The inspection carried out by the Ombudsman's services confirmed that this description was accurate. In view of these circumstances, the complainant's argument that it is not in line with Regulation 1049/2001 for an institution to rely on the category of document in its decision to refuse access is therefore not relevant.
44. The institution concerned referred to the document at issue as a 'COREU' document with a restricted circulation. It therefore appears pertinent to point out that it is not an institution's internal classification of a document, but its contents which must be considered when analysing whether an institution has provided a satisfactory explanation for its decision to refuse access.
45. The institution concerned submitted that the disclosure would weaken the EU's negotiating position vis-à-vis the Russian authorities. The inspection of the document by the Ombudsman's services has shown that it records, among other things, different approaches taken by the parties to the negotiations on how to proceed in relation to the visa issue. The relevant section also allows for conclusions to be drawn on the EU's assessment of the approach taken by the Russian Federation. The position of the institution concerned is therefore corroborated by the results of the inspection by the Ombudsman's services and is convincing. It follows that the complainant's view that the document does not reveal the EU's negotiation strategy cannot be considered to be relevant, given that the institution concerned has provided a satisfactory explanation that disclosure would undermine the public interest as regards international relations.
46. The institution concerned submitted that the relevant section of the document sets out the views expressed by the Russian Federation and that the points made in the document have not been shared with the delegation of the Russian Federation. In the complainant's view, this could not stand in the way of disclosure since the positions recorded in the document are known to both parties to the negotiations who, moreover, have apparently not agreed on the confidentiality of their negotiations. The Ombudsman recalls that granting access to a document pursuant to Regulation 1049/2001 means granting public access. It follows that the complainant's view that the positions recorded in the relevant section of the document are known to the parties to the negotiations is not relevant when assessing the reasons given by the institution concerned for its refusal to grant access. The Ombudsman moreover considers that the section of the document to which the complainant requested access relates to ongoing negotiations and allows for conclusions to be drawn on the EU's assessment of the approach taken by the Russian Federation. Irrespective of whether the parties to the negotiations agreed on confidentiality, the Ombudsman therefore considers that the argument that the disclosure of the relevant section would jeopardise the mutual trust that exists between the Russian Federation and the EU is plausible.
47. Finally, the complainant's reference to the minutes of a press conference cannot be considered to be relevant. Those minutes concern a joint press conference of the German Chancellor Merkel and the Russian President Medvedev. The complainant's argument is therefore not sufficient to establish why access should be given to the relevant section of the document setting out the results of a non-public meeting between the High Representative and Mr Lavrov.
48. In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the institution concerned has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why granting access to the document requested could specifically and effectively undermine the public interest as regards international relations and that this explanation is confirmed by the Ombudsman’s inspection of the document.
49. Bearing in mind that the complainant's request for access in essence concerned one third of a page of a document which contains information on the different approaches taken by the parties to ongoing negotiations, the position of the institution concerned that no partial access can be granted appears to be in line with the discretion it enjoys.
50. In view of the above, the Ombudsman concludes that the institution concerned has complied with its duty to state reasons for its refusal to grant access and has provided the complainant with a convincing explanation as to why no access can be granted. Therefore, the complainant's allegation that the institution concerned failed to grant him access to the requested document or provide a convincing explanation as to why no such access could be granted cannot succeed. It follows that his claim cannot be upheld either.
51. The complainant alleged that the institution concerned effectively deprived him of his right to have its decision reviewed in the framework of submitting a confirmatory application, given that it was only in reply to his confirmatory application that it gave reasons for its refusal which it should already have given in reply to his initial application for access.
52. In its opinion, the institution concerned submitted that the complainant's second allegation was devoid of purpose, given that the complainant did in fact submit a confirmatory application.
53. It is true that the complainant exercised his right to submit a confirmatory application. The failure to handle properly his initial application (which the institution concerned acknowledged) therefore clearly did not prevent the complainant from exercising his right.
54. The Ombudsman considers, however, that the complainant's allegation could also be understood in the sense that, by failing to handle his initial application properly, the institution concerned made it more difficult for him to submit a well-reasoned confirmatory application, as, in the absence of detailed reasoning in its reply to his initial application, he could not know the position of the institution concerned.
55. The Ombudsman recalls that, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, applicants may make a confirmatory application asking the institution to reconsider its position in the event of a total or partial refusal to grant access. Applicants may also submit a confirmatory application, if an institution fails to reply within the prescribed time frame (Article 7(4) of Regulation 1049/2001). It follows that Regulation 1049/2001 establishes an administrative procedure by means of which applicants may ask an institution to reconsider its position, before they can turn to the Court of Justice or to the Ombudsman.
56. The system established by Regulation 1049/2001 thus takes into account a situation in which an institution may not have handled a specific initial application properly, in substance or in procedure, and gives the institution a chance to correct its mistake(s) when deciding on the confirmatory application. It follows that the complainant's allegation cannot be sustained.
57. The Ombudsman has identified an instance of maladministration in the handling of the complainant's confirmatory application above, whereas he did not find maladministration as regards the substance of the decision. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would normally make a critical remark to the institution concerned. It should be noted, however, that the present inquiry was ultimately directed towards the EEAS, whereas the instance of maladministration occurred in the Commission's handling of the complainant's confirmatory application. While the EEAS has taken responsibility for the present case, the fact remains that the EEAS itself did not commit that instance of maladministration. Moreover, the Ombudsman has no reason to doubt that the EEAS, as a new institution, will live up to its obligations pursuant to Regulation 1049/2001 and endeavour to implement a number of best practices in that respect. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that it would neither be fair nor appropriate to make a critical remark to the EEAS in the present case and thus concludes that there is no need for further action on his part. However, in view of the fact that the Commission handled the complainant's confirmatory application, a copy of the Ombudsman's decision will also be sent to the Commission, whose attention will be drawn, in particular, to paragraphs 35-39 thereof.
On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusions:
The institution concerned has taken steps to settle the matter in so far as its handling of the complainant's initial application for access is concerned.
There are no grounds for further inquiries on the Ombudsman's part in relation to the handling of the complainant's confirmatory application for access.
There has been no maladministration as regards: (i) the decision not to grant access; and (ii) the complainant's second allegation.
The complainant and the EEAS will be informed of this decision. A copy of the decision will also be sent to the Commission.
P. Nikiforos Diamandouros
Done in Strasbourg on 3 November 2011
[1] Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
[2] Article 7(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides as follows: "An application for access to a document shall be handled promptly. An acknowledgement of receipt shall be sent to the applicant. Within 15 working days from registration of the application, the institution shall either grant access to the document requested and provide access in accordance with Article 10 within that period or, in a written reply, state the reasons for the total or partial refusal and inform the applicant of his or her right to make a confirmatory application in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article."
[3] The EEAS is headed by the High Representative whom it is meant to assist.
[4] See Case C-266/05 P Sison v. Council [2007] ECR I-1233, paragraph 63.
[5] Case C-266/05 P Sison v. Council [2007] ECR I-1233, paragraph 35.
[6] Case C-266/05 P Sison v. Council [2007] ECR I-1233, paragraph 34.
[7] Case C-139/07 P Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, judgment of 29 June 2010, not yet reported, paragraph 53 and Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v Council [2008] ECR I-4723, paragraph 49.
