Error! Reference source not found.
Action brought on 16 April 2010 - Nickel Institute v Commission
(Case T-180/10)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Nickel Institute (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer and H. Pearson, Solicitor)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
Declare the application for annulment admissible;
Annul the Commission Decision SG.E3/HP/psi-Ares(2010)65824 of 8 February 2010 to refuse full access to certain documents requested by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
1; and
Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Commission Decision SG.E3/HP/psi - Ares(2010)65824 of 8 February 2010 to refuse full access to certain documents requested by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The decision confirmed, inter alia:
The decision of the acting Director-General of the Commission's legal service to refuse full access to seven documents giving the opinion of this service on the draft of Commission Directive 2008/58/EC
2 ;
The decision of the Director of Directorate D of DG Environment to refuse full access to two documents giving opinions of other Commission directorates-general on the draft of Commission Directive 2008/58/EC; and
That no document, record or correspondence (including any follow up documents or comments thereon) exists in the Commission's possession in which the legal service gives its view on the draft of Commission Directive 2009/2/EC.
3In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward several pleas in law:
Firstly, the Secretary-General of the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Article 4(2), second indent, of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in interpreting the exception relating to the protection of legal advice with regards to several of the requested documents.
In addition, the Secretary-General of the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Article 4(2), second indent, of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in interpreting the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings with regards to the one of the requested documents.
Finally, the Secretary-General of the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Article 8(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in failing to identify and grant access to documents in which the legal service gives its view on the draft of Commission Directive 2009/2/EC.
____________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 L 145, p. 43. 2 - Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, OJ L 246, p. 1. 3 - Commission Directive 2009/2/EC of 15 January 2009 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 31st time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, OJ L 11, p. 6.