Notice for the OJ
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Action brought on 27 May 2004 by The Bavarian Lager Company against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-194/04)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Commission of the European communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 2004 by The Bavarian Lager Company, Clitheroe, United Kingdom, represented by Mr J. Pearson and Mr C. Bright Solicitors with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
- Declare that the Commission's acceptance of the UK Government's amendment to Article 7(2)(a) of the Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989 No 2390) (the "guest beer provision") was in breach of Article 28 (then Article 30) of the EC Treaty;
- Declare that the Commission should not have accepted the aforementioned amendment and in doing so, the Commission is itself was in breach of Article 28 (then Article 30) of the EC Treaty;
- Annul the Decision of the Commission dated 18 March 2004 to refuse to disclose to the applicant certain documents;
- Order the Commission to produce the full set of names of persons attending the meeting held on 11 October 1996 at which were present officers of the Directorate-General for the Internal Market, officials of the UK Government Department of Trade and Industry and representatives of the Conféderation des Brasseurs du Marché Commun; and
- Order the Commission to pay costs
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant company was formed on 28 May 1992 to import German beer for sale in public houses in the United Kingdom. In 1993 the applicant complained to the Commission about an alleged violation of Article 28 EC (then Article 30 of the EC Treaty) in connexion with the "guest beer provision" in UK legislation. Under this provision breweries are required to allow public houses bound to them by exclusive purchasing agreements to offer a "guest" beer from a different brewery. The guest beer had to be a beer undergoing fermentation in the cask from which it was sold, a type of beer which is almost exclusively produced in the United Kingdom. The beer sold by the applicant as well as most beers produced outside the United Kingdom could not be covered by this provision and the applicant considered this a measure of equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction. In a letter of 21 April 1997 the Commission informed the applicant that, in view of a proposed amendment of the guest beer provision, the procedure against the United Kingdom had been suspended and would be brought to a close as soon as the amendment had been adopted.
On 5 December 2003 the applicant requested the Commission, on the basis of Regulation 1049/20011, to grant it full access to the minutes of a meeting on this matter, which took place on 11 October 1996 between representatives of the Commission, the United Kingdom government and breweries. In particular, the applicant asked the Commission to reveal the identity of certain persons whose names had been blanked out in the minutes previously disclosed to the applicant. The Commission rejected the applicant's request and confirmed its refusal in a letter of the Secretary General to the applicant, dated 18 March 2004. In support of its refusal it invoked the need to protect personal data of the persons present at the meeting, as well as a potential risk to the Commission's ability to carry out investigations in such cases if the identity of persons giving information to the Commission were to be disclosed.
By its application, the applicant requests first of all a declaration against the Commission's decision to suspend the procedure against the United Kingdom. In this respect, the applicant invokes a violation of Articles 28 and 12 EC.
Concerning the Commission's refusal to grant it access to the documents requested, the applicant submits that Article 2 of Regulation 1049/20011 obliges the Commission to make full disclosure of the persons who attended the meeting in question, and that none of the exceptions contained in Article 4 apply. The applicant further contends that the exception in Article 4 paragraph 3 may be disregarded because there is overwhelming public interest in disclosure.
____________1 - Regulation (EC) No 049/200 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 200 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 45 , 3/05/200 P. 43 - 48