99The Councils contention, set out in its defence, that it applied the ‘authorship rule’ in its decision in order to refuse the applicants request constitutes an interpretation of that decision ex post facto, given that that decision neither mentions Article 2(2) of Decision 93/731 nor contains the expression ‘author of the document’. The applicant submits that that contention, which was indirectly but clearly rejected by the Court of Justice in Pitsiorlas, cited in paragraph 38 above, cannot constitute a legitimate statement of reasons for the Council decision, since the Council did not give the applicant the opportunity to contest it in the administrative proceedings or the action (Case C-449/98 P IECC v Commission [2001] ECR I-3875, paragraph 87; Case T-252/97 Dürbeck v Commission [2000] ECR II-3031, paragraph 97; and Case T-204/99 Mattila v Council and Commission [2001] ECR II-2265, paragraph 92).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.