# C_2012343EN.01001702.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/17

---

Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Schlyter v Commission

(Case T-402/12)

2012/C 343/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carl Schlyter (Linköping, Sweden) (represented by: O. Brouwer and S. Schubert, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the refusal of the European Commission to grant full or partial access to its opinion and observations issued in response to notification 2011/673/f relating to the content and submission conditions of annual declarations of nanoparticle substances, made by the French Republic under Directive 98/34/EC (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the refusal of the European Commission to grant full or partial access to its opinion and observations issued in response to notification 2011/673/f relating to the content and submission conditions of annual declarations of nanoparticle substances, made by the French Republic under Directive 98/34/EC (1);

1

| — | Order the European 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 party. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European 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 party.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest errors of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (3), as:






  — | The procedure under Directive 98/34/EC does not fall within the Article 4(2) third indent exception to the general principle of disclosure in the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest errors of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (3), as:

2

3

—

The procedure under Directive 98/34/EC does not fall within the Article 4(2) third indent exception to the general principle of disclosure in the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;

| — | Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 were misapplied in finding that disclosure of the requested document would specifically and effectively undermine the Commission’s interest in the procedure under Directive 98/34/EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 were misapplied in finding that disclosure of the requested document would specifically and effectively undermine the Commission’s interest in the procedure under Directive 98/34/EC.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the overriding public interest test as required by Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, as:






  — | In this case, Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 reinforces the overriding public interest. The contested decision fails to take into account the overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested document, and contains an error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the two legal provision mentioned above. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the overriding public interest test as required by Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, as:

—

In this case, Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 reinforces the overriding public interest. The contested decision fails to take into account the overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested document, and contains an error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the two legal provision mentioned above.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as:






  — | The contested decision lacks any reasoning and is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in not granting partial access in application of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as:

—

The contested decision lacks any reasoning and is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in not granting partial access in application of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

---

(1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37)

1

(2)  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)

2

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264 p. 13)

3

---