# C_2014071EN.01001001.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/10

---

Appeal brought on 17 December 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 October 2013 in Case T-545/11: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Commission

(Case C-673/13 P)

(2014/C 71/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | quash the judgment of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

quash the judgment of the General Court;

| — | pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court, either give a final ruling on the first and third pleas itself or refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on those please; and |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court, either give a final ruling on the first and third pleas itself or refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on those please; and

| — | order the respondents to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondents to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appeal consists of one plea, namely that the General Court misconstrued the concept of information which ‘relates to emissions into the environment’ in the first sentence of Article 6(1) of 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 (1) (‘the Aarhus Regulation’), dismissing the Commission's view that this concept must be interpreted in a consistent and harmonious way in the light of the other provisions in issue. There are three branches to this plea:

| (i) | the General Court erred in disregarding the need to ensure the ‘internal’ consistency of 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 (2) read with Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Regulation, as understood in the light of Article 4(4) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Aarhus Convention’); |
| --- | --- |

(i)

the General Court erred in disregarding the need to ensure the ‘internal’ consistency of 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 (2) read with Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Regulation, as understood in the light of Article 4(4) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Aarhus Convention’);

| (ii) | the General Court failed to take due account of the confidentiality provisions in sector-specific legislation on plant protection products, namely Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (3) and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (4); and |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the General Court failed to take due account of the confidentiality provisions in sector-specific legislation on plant protection products, namely Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (3) and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (4); and

| (iii) | the General Court erred in disregarding the need to construe Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Regulation in so far as possible in conformity with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS’). |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

the General Court erred in disregarding the need to construe Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Regulation in so far as possible in conformity with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS’).

---

(1)  OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p. 13.

(2)  OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

(3)  OJ L 230, 19.08.1991, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1.

---