Action brought on 9 September 2016 – ClientEarth v Commission
(Case T-644/16)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer, and N. Frey, Solicitor)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul the defendant’s decision to refuse access to the requested documents pursuant to 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, 1 as communicated to the applicant on 1 July 2016 in a letter with the reference C(2016) 4286 final;
order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest error of assessment resulting in a misapplication of the international relations exception (third indent of Article 4(1)(a) Regulation No 1049/2001) and failure to state reasons:
The Commission has not established the applicability of the international relations exception. It has notably not established how disclosure of purely legal documents that contain reflections on EU law is in itself capable of revealing strategic objectives pursued by the European Union during negotiations or weakens the Commission’s negotiating position. The Commission is bound by the rule of law and cannot negotiate international agreements that violate EU law. The Applicant further submits that Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (and other exceptions) cannot be invoked "in perpetuum", i.e. as long as the Commission conducts anywhere negotiations regarding other international agreements. The Commission has moreover failed to state reasons as to how disclosure of the requested documents could specifically and actually undermine the public interest as regards international relations.
Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest error of assessment resulting in a misapplication of the protection of legal advice exception (second indent of Article 4(2) Regulation No 1049/2001) and failure to state reasons:
The Commission has failed to establish whether there is a reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical risk that disclosure of the requested documents would undermine its interest in receiving frank, objective and comprehensive legal advice.
Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest error of assessment resulting in the misapplication of the protection of the decision-making process exception (first subparagraph of Article 4(3) Regulation No 1049/2001) and failure to state reasons:
The Commission has failed to explain how access to the requested documents could specifically and actually undermine the decision-making process.
Fourth plea in law, alleging error of law and manifest error of assessment resulting in the misapplication of the overriding public interest test and failure to state reasons:
There is an overriding public interest, because disclosure would make it possible to have a debate on access to justice, notably access to (and the role of) domestic courts, and the need to preserve the unity and autonomy of EU law. These topics are of direct interest to EU citizens and NGOs like the applicant.
Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 4(6) Regulation No 1049/2001 (Partial access) and request of a measure of inquiry
The applicant submits that the Commission did not, or in any event not to the requisite legal standard, examine and grant partial access to the requested documents.
____________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).