Action brought on 10 October 2013 – Verein Natura Havel and Vierhaus v Commission
(Case T-538/13)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicants: Verein Natura Havel eV (Berlin, Germany) and H.-P. Vierhaus (Berlin) (represented by: O. Austilat, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the General Court should:
annul the Decision of the European Commission – Directorate-General Environment – of 24 June 2013 and of the European Commission – Secretariat-General – of 3 September 2013 by which access to the letter of formal notice of the Commission opening infringement procedure No 2013/4000 against the Federal Republic of Germany of 30 May 2013 was refused;
order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the applicants’ costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicants’ right to access information
The applicants maintain, in the first place, that the contested Commission decision infringes their right to information conferred by Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 1 The applicants submit that the provisions referred to were designed to create maximum transparency and that exceptions must be narrowly construed. In addition, according to case-law, stringent requirements must be set as regards the proof of serious interference with the investigation. The contested decision does not fulfil that requirement.
Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the examination of partial access
The applicants further claim that the examination carried out by the Commission, refusing a merely partial access to information, is vitiated by an error of law. The considerations mentioned to that effect in the decision are, they submit, incorrect and infringe the principle of proportionality.
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons
In addition, the applicants submit, the contested decision does not satisfy the requirements to be set in respect of the obligation to state reasons.
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the second sentence of Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
The applicants also allege infringement of their right, arising from the second sentence of Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to receive information without interference by public authority.
____________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).