Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 8 August 2002 by Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-237/02)

    Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 2002 by Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, whose registered office is at Ilmenau (Germany), represented by G. Schohe and Ch. Arhold, lawyers, acting as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should

(annul the Commission's decision of 28 May 2002 concerning the applicant's application for access to documents ( D(2002) 330168 ( except for the part in which access is refused to documents directly connected with the pending aid procedure concerning Schott;

(order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By application of 15 April 2002 the applicant, a manufacturer of special glass, requested, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, ¹ access to documents relating to various State aid procedures. Two of those procedures concerned the applicant itself as a presumed recipient of State aid; the others concerned one of its competitors on the special glass markets, the firm Schott Glass. The applicant's action is directed at the Commission's decision of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refuses to grant access to the documents in the aid procedures concerning the applicant itself and in procedures concerning Schott Glass and are already completed.

The applicant submits that the Commission's refusal manifestly infringes Article 2(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The applicant had a right to access which was not restricted by Article 4 of the regulation. In particular, the Commission had not proved the existence of any specific impairment of the protected interests set out in Article 4(2) of the regulation.

Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly relied on the exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits. Referring to Article 4(7) of the regulation, the applicant submits that it has at the very least the right to access to documents in examination procedures which have already been completed. Moreover, it ought to have been possible for the Commission to grant the applicant access to a document in which business secrets had been obscured and thus to grant partial access in accordance with Article 4(6) of the regulation.

Finally, the Commission infringed its obligation to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC, since it had merely given a general statement of reasons.

____________

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).