1 See in 't Veld v. Department of Homeland Security Case No 1:08-cv-0115-RMC, District Judge Collyer presiding (D.C.C, 15 December 2008); see Case T-529/09, in 't Veld v. Council [2012] ECR II-000; T-301/10, in 't Veld v. European Commission [2013] ECR II-000; Case C-350/12 P, Council v. in 't Veld [2014] ECR I-000. See further: Fahey ‘Between One-Shotters and Repeat Hitters: A Retrospective on the role of the European Parliament in the EU-US PNR Litigation’ in: Nicol/Davies (eds.), EU Law Stories, 2015.

2 Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and Transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme, OJ 2010 L 195, 27 July 2010.

3 ‘Bank data is sifted by US in Secret to Block Terror’ The New York Times (23 June 2006).

4 And also in the absence of an EU version of the TFTP Agreement for the EU.

5 See the account of Adriana Ripoll Servent and MacKenzie, Alex, “The European Parliament as norm-taker? EU-US relations after the SWIFT Agreement” 17(5), European Foreign Affairs Review (2012), p. 71 Google Scholar.

6 In conjunction with Article 218(5) TFEU, providing the Council with competence to enter the Agreement.

7 Which was Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) TFEU, the former providing competence for judicial cooperation between the States in criminal matters.

8 See T-529/09, in 't Veld v. Council [2012] ECR II-000.

9 Council Regulation (EC) 1049/2011 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.

10 Which was Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) TFEU, the former providing competence for judicial cooperation between the States in criminal matters.

11 See T-529/09, in 't Veld v. Council [2012] ECR II-000, citing C280/11 P Council v. Access Info Europe [2013] ECR I-000.

12 See para. 31.

13 Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, delivered on 13 February 2014.

14 Joined Cases C39/05 P and C52/05 P, Sweden and Turco v. Council [2008] ECR I4723 (‘Turco’).

15 Para. 69-71.

16 Case C350/12 P, Council of the European Union v. Sophie in ’t Veld [2014].

17 Para. 54.

18 Para. 109.

19 Case 22/70 Commission v. Council [1971] ECR 263.

20 Council Regulation (EC) 1049/2011 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).

21 See Council Decision on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America, No. 12195/11, 23 August 2011. It was negotiated and signed by the EU and was vetoed by the EP in July 2012 for reasons related to the failure to inform it adequately and on time.

22 Christina Eckes, Elaine Fahey and Machiko Kanetake, “International, European and US Perspectives on the Negotiation and Adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)”, Currents, XX(2), (2012), p. 20. See European Commission, 10 Myths about ACTA, 1, 1-3 (2012), http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/january/tradoc_148964.pdf (last accessed on 2 December 2014). Driessen, Transparency in EU Institutional Law: A practitioner's handbook, 2012.

23 T-301/10, in 't Veld v. European Commission [2013] ECR II-000, appeal pending. See also its confirmation in part by the General Court in Case C-331/11 Besselink v. Council [2013] ECR I-000 (Council decision authorising ECHR accession negotiations), paras. 70, 72. Cf Marija Bartl and Elaine Fahey, “A Post National marketplace? Negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership” in Elaine Fahey and Deirdre Curtin (eds.), A Transatlantic Community of Law: Legal Perspectives on the Relationship between the EU and US legal orders, (2014) on the mere ‘listing’ of EU interests in a negotiation mandate for an international agreement is not in any sense a strategy: Curtin, Deirdre, “Official Secrets and the Negotiation of International Agreements: is the EU Executive Unbound?”, 50 Common Market Law Review, (2013), p. 423 Google Scholar.

24 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/ (last accessed on 3 November 2014).

25 Available at http://eu-secretdeals.info/ttip/ (last accessed on 3 November 2014).

26 Available at http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/correspondence.faces/en/56100/html.bookmark (last accessed on 3 November 2014).

27 E.g. The EU-Canada free trade agreement (CETA) was leaked in August 2014 by the German broadcaster ARD.

28 See T-331/11, Besselink v. Council of Europe [2013] ECR II-000.

29 See House of Lords European Scrutiny Committee (8 January 2014) - Contents: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmeuleg/83-xxvi/8317.htm (last accessed on 2 December 2014). ‘… it is also apparent that the EU courts are now more open to partial disclosure of institutional documentation, albeit non-court documentation, relevant to the accession process. We refer the Government to the recent judgment in the case of [see T-331/11] Besselink v. Council of Europe (12 September 2013) […] where the General Court required the Council to reconsider partially disclosing the accession negotiating mandate (pursuant to Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001) in accordance with the proportionality principle.’

30 Stefan, Alberto Alemanno Oana, “Openness at the Court of Justice of the European Union: Toppling a Taboo”, 51(1) Common Market Law Review, 2014, p. 97 Google Scholar.

31 See http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1201 (last accessed on 2 December 2014).