Action brought on 27 August 2021 – Saure v Commission
(Case T-524/21)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2021 to reject the applicant’s request for access to documents of the Commission by refusing to provide him with copies of all of the correspondence that it has exchanged, since 1 April 2020, with the company AstraZeneca plc or with its subsidiaries as well as with the Federal Chancellery of Germany or with the Federal Ministry of Health, relating to the company AstraZeneca plc or its subsidiaries, and in particular to the quantity of Covid-19 vaccines offered by AstraZeneca plc and its delivery deadlines;
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
First plea in law: The applicant has a right to access the European Commission documents at issue pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 1 The refusal by the Commission infringes that provision.
Second plea in law: The ground for exclusion laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s right of access. That ground for exclusion is limited in time and applies only to pending court proceedings and legal advice. The pending proceedings in Belgium against AstraZeneca under No 2021/48/C relate to a substantially different set of facts and have already been disposed of by the judgment of 18 June 2021. The conditions for infringing the principles of equality of arms and sound administration of justice are not fulfilled either, since any proceedings that might be affected have already been disposed of.
____________
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).