Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1999:156
Date: 1999-07-19
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Concepts: Statement of reasons;General;Obligation to state reasons
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment
1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures producing binding legal
effects — Commission letter confirming a decision refusing to disclose the minutes of a
comitology committee — Not an actionable measure
(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC)
2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons— Obligation — Scope — Commis­
sion decision refusing to disclose the minutes of a comitology committee
(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (note Art. 253 EC); Commission Decision 94/90)
II - 2463
SUMMARY — CASE T-188/97
3. Commission — Right of public access to Commission documents — Decision 94/90 —
Limits of the principle of access to documents — Rule on authorship — To be
narrowly construed — Minutes of comitology committees — Refusal of access
founding on the rule on authorship — Unlawful
(Council Decision 87/373; Commission Decision 94/90)
1. The acts or decisions in respect of
which an action for annulment may
be brought are those measures which
produce binding legal effects such as to
affect the interests of the applicant by
bringing about a distinct change in its
legal position. That is not the position
in the case of a Commission letter
which merely confirms a decision
refusing to forward the minutes of a
comitology committee, since in such
circumstances the the only act open to
challenge for the purposes of Arti­
cle 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 230 EC) would be
the decision itself.
2. The obligation to state reasons — laid
down in Article 190 of the Treaty (now
Article 253 EC) — means that the
reasoning of the Community authority
which adopted the contested measure
must be shown clearly and unequivo­
cally so as to enable the persons
concerned to ascertain the reasons for
the measure in order to protect their
rights and the Community judicature
to exercise its power of review.
In that connection, a Commission
decision refusing to forward the min­
utes of a comitology committee is
sufficiently reasoned where it refers to
the rule on authorship laid down in the
code of conduct adopted by Decision
94/90 on public access to Commission
documents and confirms that, by virtue
of that rule, the request was inadmis­
sible on the ground that the author of
the documents sought was a third
party.
3. Decision 94/90 on public access to
Commission documents provides that,
where a document held by an institu­
tion has been written by a natural or
legal person, a Member State, another
Community institution or body or any
other national or international body,
the application for access must be sent
direct to the author. Since that 'rule on
authorship' constitutes an exception to
a general principle, it must be con­
strued strictly, so as not to frustrate the
application of the general principle of
transparency laid down by Decision
94/90.
For the purposes of the Community
legislation on access to documents,
comitology committees — set up pur­
suant to Decision 87/373 laying down
the procedures for the exercise of
implementing powers conferred on the
Commission — come under the Com­
mission itself, which is responsible for
ruling on applications for access to
documents of those committees, such
II - 2464
ROTHMANS INTERNATIONAL V COMMISSION
as the minutes of the Customs Code
Committee. Comitology committees,
which are presided over by a Commis­
sion representative, assist the Commis­
sion in performing the tasks conferred
on it. Moreover, they do not have their
own administration, budget, archives
or premises, still less an address of their
own. Consequently, a committee such
as the Customs Code Committee,
which does not belong to any of the
categories of third-party authors, can­
not be regarded as being 'another
Community institution or body' within
the meaning of Decision 94/90. Fur­
thermore, refusal of access to the
minutes of the various 'comitology'
committees would amount to placing
a considerable restriction on the right
of access to documents, incompatible
with the very objective of the right of
access to documents.
Consequently, a Commission decision
refusing access to the minutes of the
Customs Code Committee by invoking
the rule on authorship is contrary to
Decision 94/90 and must be annulled.
II - 2465