Trivial observations (e.g., long lists of Member States that have at any one time been involved in access to documents litigation without any convincing conclusion following from such an enumeration) are succeeded by confused conceptualisations (e.g., the EU institutions are introduced twice as a distinct category of actor), or even outright overdramatization, such as when the authors
argue that «[a] t one stroke, any authority of the Member States -LSB-...]
over the release of documents transmitted to the EU was set aside [by Regulation 1049/01]» (p. 216), but neglect to mention that the Member States as legislators in the Council agreed to this revision themselves, or that the Council engaged in successive internal negotiations to settle the question of what was to be considered a «Member State document».