—

no specific legal protection may apply to the documents at issue;

—

even supposing that specific protection may apply to the documents sought, Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides that ‘he exceptions as laid down in paragraphs 1 to 3 shall only apply for the period during which protection is justified on the basis of the content of the document.’ Half of the maximum period of protection laid down in Article 4(7) has already passed, which justifies the grant of access to the documents sought;

—

finally, the documents sought are not sensitive documents within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001;

—

whether third parties have provided ‘confidential’ information for use in those documents is irrelevant, since Regulation No 1049/2001 does not allow an institution to refuse access to a document in order to protect a hypothetical ‘third party’;

—

the Council’s argument that it seeks to ‘protect’ the physical well-being of observers, witnesses and other sources constitutes a desire to protect the private interests of those persons and does not affect public security;

—

in order to reconcile its concern for the protection of the identity of certain persons with the need to satisfy the interest of the public, the Council is able, always, to limit public access to the documents sought by deleting from those documents references that would allow identification of those ‘third parties’;