Courts: An Effective Venue to Promote Government Transparency? The Case of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to shed some light on the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union on transparency and access to documents. It uses case law as a method to investigate the potential of the Court of Justice jurisprudence for the protection of transparency as a general principle and access to documents as a fundamental right in the European Union. The article employs the concepts of Eurolegalism and the constitutionalisation of rights as a framework to examine the case law of the EU’s highest court. It focuses on the trends established by the Court on access rights by looking at some of the most influential cases that had made history through the years and analyzing their potential to create a body of a reformed administrative law in the EU pertaining transparency. While the Court of Justice may not be the ultimate solution to the problems of transparency in the Union, it has established itself as a driving force in the development of transparency and access rights regime in the EU and may affect their future trajectories in the face of legislative challenges.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".