# C_2016191EN.01000501.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/5

---

Appeal brought on 1 February 2016 by ClientEarth against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2015 in joined cases T-424/14 and T-425/14: ClientEarth v European Commission

(Case C-57/16 P)

(2016/C 191/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, F. Heringa, J. Wolfhagen, advocaten)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| i. | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2015 by which it:






  — | dismissed the actions brought by the Appellant; |
| --- | --- | --- |

i.

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2015 by which it:

—

dismissed the actions brought by the Appellant;

| — | ordered the Appellant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

ordered the Appellant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| ii. | to order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by eventual intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

to order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by eventual intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant respectfully submits that the Judgment should be annulled on the following grounds:

Ground 1
  : Error in law in accepting a general presumption in the context of article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) (first subparagraph) with respect to the requested documents.

Ground 1

1

The General Court committed an error in law, since it:

| i. | misapplied the case-law of the CJ; |
| --- | --- |

i.

misapplied the case-law of the CJ;

| ii. | failed to recognize that Article 17(1) to (3) TEU provides no basis to accept such general presumption; |
| --- | --- |

ii.

failed to recognize that Article 17(1) to (3) TEU provides no basis to accept such general presumption;

| iii. | accepted a general presumption with respect to non-disclosure of the requested documents without applying the test of actual and specific harm; |
| --- | --- |

iii.

accepted a general presumption with respect to non-disclosure of the requested documents without applying the test of actual and specific harm;

| iv. | failed to acknowledge that the requested documents are intrinsically linked to the decision to pursue or not to pursue legislative policy initiatives; |
| --- | --- |

iv.

failed to acknowledge that the requested documents are intrinsically linked to the decision to pursue or not to pursue legislative policy initiatives;

Ground 2
  : Error in law in not recognizing the existence of an overriding public interest.

Ground 2

The General Court committed an error in law, since it:

| i. | failed to consider the specific public interests raised by ClientEarth; |
| --- | --- |

i.

failed to consider the specific public interests raised by ClientEarth;

| ii. | found that the disclosure of requested documents at a later point in time precludes the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents; |
| --- | --- |

ii.

found that the disclosure of requested documents at a later point in time precludes the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents;

| iii. | found that the disclosure of documents other than the requested documents precludes the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents; |
| --- | --- |

iii.

found that the disclosure of documents other than the requested documents precludes the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents;

| iv. | did not recognise the nature of the public interest represented by ClientEarth; |
| --- | --- |

iv.

did not recognise the nature of the public interest represented by ClientEarth;

| v. | failed to interpret the grounds for refusal in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure, as provided by the second sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation 1367/2006 (2); |
| --- | --- |

v.

failed to interpret the grounds for refusal in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure, as provided by the second sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation 1367/2006 (2);

2

| vi. | did not recognise the public interest in the improvement of access to justice in environmental matters. |
| --- | --- |

vi.

did not recognise the public interest in the improvement of access to justice in environmental matters.

---

(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 L 145, p. 43

1

(2)  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 L 264, p. 13

2

---