Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Deutsche Umwelthilfe v Commission

(Case T-498/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV (Radolfzell, Germany) (represented by: R. Klinger and R. Geulen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision;

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following pleas in support of its action.

Right of access to the written correspondence between the European Commission and the undertakings Honeywell and DuPont and automobile manufacturers regarding the new refrigerant R1234yf

–    The applicant submits that the Commission failed to recognise the applicant’s right of access under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006. ¹ According to that provision, documents of the institutions must always be made accessible if they relate to emissions into the environment. The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 contains a statutory presumption that the interest in disclosure of the information takes precedence over the interest of undertakings in ensuring their protection.

The applicant further submits that the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 constitutes an explicit rule for the interpretation of the first and second indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. ² The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006, it argues, modifies what is stated in Regulation No 1049/2001 as soon as documents relate to emissions into the environment. The applicant submits that the documents withheld presumably contain information on the refrigerants R1234yf and R134a, which are harmful to health and to the climate, and that the quantities of poisonous hydrogen fluoride emissions can be deduced from the declarations, assessments and proposals of automobile manufacturers and refrigerant producers with regard to the use of those chemicals.

In the alternative, the applicant submits that access to the requested documents must itself be granted on the basis of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The condition governing the exception set out in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is, it argues, not satisfied. In addition, there is an overriding interest in access to the documents because the health risks linked to use of the refrigerant are significant.

____________

____________

¹ Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

² 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).