Appeal brought on 25 September 2018 by ClientEarth against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-644/16: ClientEarth v Commission

(Case C-612/18 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, N. Frey, Solicitor, E. N. M. Raedts, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 in Case T-644/16 ("the contested judgment") and to refer the case back to the General Court for consideration ;

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: errors of law and breaches of procedure in the contested judgment in relation to the argument that the disclosure of the documents cannot weaken the Commission’s negotiation position (contested judgment paragraphs 34-51), by:

widening of the exception to material not specifically related to an envisaged international agreement ;

applying the international relations exception without requiring a specific explanation of how disclosure could specifically and actually undermine international relations ;

substituting reasoning regarding the legal analysis contained in the requested documents ; and

distorting evidence regarding the state of negotiations at the time of the contested decision.

Second ground of appeal: error of law in the contested judgment relating to the argument that the strategic objectives of the European Union would not be undermined (contested judgment paragraphs 52-53).

Third ground of appeal: breach of procedure and error of law in the considerations in the contested judgment relating to the argument that disclosure of the requested documents furthers rather than undermines the public interest as regards international relations (contested judgment paragraphs 54-58).

Fourth ground of appeal: error of law and irregularity of procedure in the considerations in the contested judgment relating to the argument that non-disclosure as long as there are ‘ongoing negotiations’ effectively results in indefinite non-disclosure (contested judgment paragraphs 59-67).

Fifth ground of appeal: denaturation of arguments brought before the General Court in the considerations in the contested judgment relating to the Commission’s argument that the Regulation does not allow for documents to be disclosed ‘as long as the position of the Court of Justice is not known’ (contested judgment paragraphs 68-69).

Sixth ground of appeal: breach of procedure in the considerations in the contested judgment relating to the seventh argument that disclosure cannot be made dependent on equal transparency obligations of trade partners (contested judgment paragraphs 72-74).

Seventh ground of appeal: error of law through breach of Art. 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001¹ when assessing partial access (contested judgment paragraphs 79-90).

____________

¹ Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 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).