# C_2008022EN.01003602.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/36

---

Appeal brought on 29 November 2007 by Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/04: Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-528/07 P)

(2008/C 22/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) (represented by: S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, F. Louis, avocat and C. O'Daly, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-36/04, API v Commission, of 12 September 2007 in so far as the Court of First Instance upheld the Commission's right not to disclose the Commission's pleadings in cases where an oral hearing was yet to be held; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-36/04, API v Commission, of 12 September 2007 in so far as the Court of First Instance upheld the Commission's right not to disclose the Commission's pleadings in cases where an oral hearing was yet to be held;

API v Commission,

| — | annul the parts of Commission Decision D(2003) 30621 of 20 November 2003 not previously annulled by the Court of First Instance in Case T-36/04, or in the alternative refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for further adjudication in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the parts of Commission Decision D(2003) 30621 of 20 November 2003 not previously annulled by the Court of First Instance in Case T-36/04, or in the alternative refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for further adjudication in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

| 1. | First, the Court of First Instance erroneously interpreted Article 4(2) 2nd indent of the Regulation (the ‘court proceedings exception’) when it held that the Commission need not carry out a concrete assessment as to whether to give access to its written pleadings before the oral hearing. This interpretation (i) is contrary to well-established principles for interpreting the court proceedings exception that are recognised elsewhere in the Judgment; (ii) is premised on a non-existent right by the Commission to defend its interests ‘free from all external influences’; (iii) relies on manifestly incorrect legal arguments when invoking the ‘equality of arms principle’; (iv) erroneously dismisses the significance of other jurisdictions' rules that allow access to pleadings before the hearing; and (v) wrongly relies on the need to protect the effet utile of the Community courts' in camera procedures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First, the Court of First Instance erroneously interpreted Article 4(2) 2nd indent of the Regulation (the ‘court proceedings exception’) when it held that the Commission need not carry out a concrete assessment as to whether to give access to its written pleadings before the oral hearing. This interpretation (i) is contrary to well-established principles for interpreting the court proceedings exception that are recognised elsewhere in the Judgment; (ii) is premised on a non-existent right by the Commission to defend its interests ‘free from all external influences’; (iii) relies on manifestly incorrect legal arguments when invoking the ‘equality of arms principle’; (iv) erroneously dismisses the significance of other jurisdictions' rules that allow access to pleadings before the hearing; and (v) wrongly relies on the need to protect the effet utile of the Community courts' in camera procedures.

effet utile

in camera

| 2. | Second, the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the term ‘overriding public interest’ in Article 4(2) in fine of the Regulation by holding that, when written pleadings submitted to the courts are in issue, the general public interest in the content of proceedings before the Community courts is not capable of overriding any interest protected by the court proceedings exception. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second, the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the term ‘overriding public interest’ in Article 4(2) in fine of the Regulation by holding that, when written pleadings submitted to the courts are in issue, the general public interest in the content of proceedings before the Community courts is not capable of overriding any interest protected by the court proceedings exception.

in fine

---