Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 28 August 2008 - IFAW Internationaler Tiershutz-Fonds v Commission

(Case T-362/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IFAW Internationaler Tiershutz-Fonds gGmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Crosby and S. Santoro, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

To order the Commission to produce to the Court the letter from Mr Schröder, German Chancellor, of 15 March 2000 to Mr Prodi, President of the Commission;

To find that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law and by manifest errors of assessment and to annul it accordingly; and

To order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of procedure of the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 18 December 2007 in Case C-64/05 P², the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2004 in Case T-168/02 IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission [2004] ECR 1435, annulling the Commission's decision of 26 March 2002 which had refused access to the documents requested by the applicant by application of 20 December 2001, concerning the declassification of the Elbe site in Hamburg, a nature reserve, protected by the Natura 2000 scheme, as established by Council Directive 92/43/EEC, for the expansion of the existing Daimler Chrysler Aerospace GmbH plant for the final assembly of the Airbus A3XX. As a consequence, in the light of the Court's judgment on appeal, the applicant, by letter of 13 February 2008, renewed its application for access to the requested documents and made a confirmatory application, in accordance with Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on 29 April 2008.

By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 230 EC, the annulment of the Commission's decision of 19 June 2008, granting partial access to its request and refusing to allow access to one of the documents for which the applicant applied under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

The applicant claims that the Commission committed an error of law by applying Article 4(1)(a), third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to a purely intra-EU relationship. Moreover, the applicant submits that the Commission committed a manifest error of law in considering that the content of Mr Schröder's letter was confidential to such an extent that its disclosure would jeopardise the economic policy of Germany and other EU Member States. Further, the applicant contends that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in considering that the disclosure of the letter would compromise the decision-making process and, finally, by not considering public interest as overriding the confidential nature of is decision-making process.

____________

¹ - Case C-64/05 P Kingdom of Sweden v Commission [2007] ECR 11389

² - Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7)

³ - 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)