EU: Statewatch appeals successfully against US veto on access
01 March 2002
In December 2001 the Council of the European Union refused Statewatch copies of the agendas of the EU-US Senior Level Group and the EU-US Task Force because the US vetoed access to them. Statewatch appealed against the initial decision of the General Secretariat of the Council and, finally, on 6 March this year 35 agendas were released (ten of the meetings were conducted by "video-conferencing"). However, the released agendas contained no less that 458 sections of information blocked out with the phrase:
Not accessible to the public
In July last year ? after a four year fight and two successful complaints to the European Ombudsman ? Statewatch finally obtained the agendas of ten EU?US high?level planning meetings between September 1996 and February 1998. The agendas concern meetings of the "Senior Level Group" and the "EU?US Task Force" set up under the New Transatlantic Agenda agreed in 1995.
On 23 July 2001 Statewatch applied to the Council for the agendas of these two groups after 25 February 1998. On 22 August the Council extended the deadline for replying by one month and on 20 September the Council asked for more time to carry out "consultations". As no reply was received Statewatch wrote again to the Council on 15 December. On 18 December the Council finally replied ? after the new Regulation on access to documents had come into force on 3 December 2001.
Their letter said that the agendas of the "Senior Level Group" and the "EU?US Task Force" were "drawn up jointly by the EU and US side" and are "at least partly? third party documents". The Council had therefore "consulted the US authorities" and:
the US authorities said they were opposed to releasing the documents in question, as in their view they are to be considered as "government?to?government documents" not intended for ? even partial ? publication.
In these circumstances, the General Secretariat [of the Council] cannot but conclude that the release of these agendas would significantly disturb the good functioning of the cooperation between the European Union and the United States"
On 6 January 2002 Statewatch lodged an appeal against the refusal of access to the agendas:
a) contesting the issue of "co?authors" which was expressly addressed, and rejected, by the European Ombudsman in the original Statewatch complaints;
b) saying that the Council's claim that releasing the agendas could "significantly disturb the good functioning of cooperation between the EU and the US" is preposterous ? the 1996?1998 released agendas showed they contain no sensitive information;
c) The Council's view that because the US objects to the release of the agendas that it has no choice but to refuse access is contrary to its obligations under the Regulation to reach an independent decision.
The Council again asked for more time to "consult" before releasing the agendas (or parts of them) in March. Its answer to the appeal said that:
the Council decided to refuse access to specific parts of the documents which contain annotations intended to guide the discussion and were meant for internal consideration only. The release of those parts could significantly disturb the good functioning of the cooperation between the EU and the United States and potentially have an impact on the European Union's relations with third countries
The US authorities, having first opposed any release of the agendas (even partial access), did a U-turn and reluctantly agreed provided 458 deletions were made.
What the documents tell us
All that can gleaned from the agenda alone is the scope of these high-level meetings between the EU and the US. The World Trade Organisations (WTO), the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) and the Transatlantic Labour Dialogue (TALD) figure regularly as topics, as do discussions on China (Human Rights), Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, data protection (safe harbour), UN reform and finances, Kyoto, Plan Colombia, climate change.
The agendas also make clear that j