Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2022:225
Date: 2022-04-06
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 16 August 2021 – Saure v Commission (Case T-506/21) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant’s request to access Commission documents of 9 June 2021 through the issuing of copies of all minutes, summaries, memoranda, notes, files from meetings, negotiations, decisions, proposals, transcripts, emails, letters, records of telephone calls – in particular regarding advance purchase agreements – and specific contracts with pharmaceutical companies for the delivery of Covid-19 vaccines to combat the Covid-19 pandemic drawn up by the ‘Steering Committee’ and ‘Joint Negotiations Team’. By ‘advance purchase agreements’ we understand every contract for the purchase, delivery, securing, reservation, or development of Covid-19 vaccines for EU Member States; order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. First plea in law: The applicant claims that he is entitled to access the European Commission documents at issue in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 1 The Commission’s refusal to grant access infringes that provision. Second plea in law: It is submitted that no ground for exclusion precludes the applicant’s right of access. In particular, the ground for exclusion set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s request. The disclosure of the information requested is necessary for numerous purposes in the public interest. Therefore, a potential interference with privacy and the integrity of the individual is permissible. Furthermore, the risk of undermining must specifically and actually be raised and presented as an issue. The defendant has not however discharged that burden of raising and presenting an issue. ____________ 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 2001 L 145, p. 43).