Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:224
Date: 2017-03-28
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 28 March 2017 1. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Refusal to grant access — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Possibility of relying on general presumptions applicable to certain categories of documents (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2)) 2. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Protection of commercial interests — Application to administrative files relating to procedures for abuse of a dominant position — General presumption that disclosure of the said documents will undermine protection of the interests involved in such an investigation — Maintenance of the presumption after closure of the procedure (Arts 15(3) TFEU and 102 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), first and third indents; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 27(2), and 28; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Arts 6, 8, 15 and 16) 3. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Obligation to grant partial access to data not covered by the exceptions — Application to documents falling within a category covered by a general presumption of refusal of access — Exclusion (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2) and (6)) 4. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Protection of commercial interests — Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents — Concept — Interest in being informed of the Commission’s action in the field of competition — Inclusion — Limits (Art. 102 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, sixth recital and Art. 4(2), first and third indents; Council Regulation No 1/2003) 5. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents — Concept — Individual interest of the applicant — Exclusion (Art. 15 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, first and second recitals and Art. 4(2)) 6. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Decision refusing an initial request for access to documents of an institution — Exclusion (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 8) 7. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the principle of access to documents — Refusal based on several exceptions — Lawfulness (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4) 8. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Documents emanating from third parties — Requirement for prior consultation of the third parties concerned — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1), (2) and (4)) 9. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Refusal to grant access — Possibility of relying on general presumptions applicable to certain categories of documents —No obligation to examine individually all the documents covered by a global request for access (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4) 10. Fundamental rights — Right of public access to documents of EU institutions — Limits —Action against a decision refusing access — Examination of legality having regard to measures of secondary law establishing the conditions for access (Art. 15(3) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 42; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) 11. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Protection of commercial interests — Justification by considerations of the public interest — No breach of principle of proportionality (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), first and third indents) 12. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Time-limit prescribed for replying to a confirmatory request for access — Exceeded — Implied rejection decision open to a legal action — Delayed response of the institution concerned coming before the action brought — Fact not justifying annulment of the decision refusing access (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 8(1) to (3)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 27-29, 87) 2. The Commission is correct to base its decision on a general presumption derived from the exceptions laid down in Article 4(2), first and third indents, of Regulation No 1049/2001, regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, in order to refuse access to documents appearing in the investigation file concerning a procedure concerned for abuse of a dominant position, where it takes the view that disclosure of those documents would, in principle, be liable to undermine both the protection of the commercial interests of the undertakings involved in such a procedure and the protection of the purpose of the related investigation. Such a general presumption may arise, as regards the proceedings for the application of Article 102 TFEU, from the provisions of Regulation No 1/2003 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, which specifically govern the right of access to documents in the Commission’s case files concerning those proceedings. In that regard, Articles 27(2) and 28 of Regulation No 1/2003 and Articles 6, 8, 15 and 16 of Regulation No 773/2004 lay down restrictive rules for the use of documents in the file relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU by confining access to the file to the ‘parties concerned’ and to ‘complainants’ whose complaints the Commission intends to reject, subject to the protection of the business secrets and other confidential information of undertakings and internal documents of the Commission and the competition authorities of the Member States, and provided that the documents made available are used only for the purposes of judicial or administrative proceedings for the application of Article 102 TFEU. It follows not only that the parties to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU do not enjoy unlimited right of access to the documents in the Commission’s file, but also that third parties, with the exception of complainants, do not, under such a proceeding, have any right of access to the documents in the Commission’s file. In those circumstances, generalised access on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001, to the documents exchanged, in a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU between the Commission and the parties concerned by that procedure or third parties would jeopardise the balance which the EU legislature sought to ensure in Regulations Nos 1/2003 and 773/2004 between the obligation on the undertakings concerned to submit to the Commission possibly sensitive commercial information and the guarantee of increased protection, by virtue of the requirement of professional secrecy and business secrecy, for the information so provided to the Commission. In that connection, the administrative activity of the Commission does not require as extensive an access to documents as that concerning the legislative activity of a Union institution. In addition, having regard to the nature of the interests protected, the existence of a general principle applies regardless of whether the request for access concerns an investigation which has already been closed or one which is pending. The publication of sensitive information concerning the economic activities of the undertakings involved is likely to harm their commercial interests, regardless of whether an investigation is pending. Furthermore, the prospect of such publication after a control procedure is closed runs the risk of adversely affecting the willingness of undertakings to cooperate when such a procedure is pending. (see paras 32, 37, 38, 41, 42, 45, 53) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 46, 54, 55, 107) 4. The public must be in a position to ascertain the actions taken by the Commission in the field of competition in order to ensure, on the one hand, that it is possible to identify in a sufficiently precise manner conduct for which economic operators are liable to be penalised and, on the other hand, that the Commission’s decision-making practice is understood, since the latter is of crucial importance to the functioning of the internal market, which affects all European Union citizens, both as economic operators and as consumers. There is, therefore, an overriding public interest in the public being able to ascertain certain essential elements of Commission action in the field of competition. However, the existence of that public interest does not require the Commission to grant generalised access, on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001, to all the information collected in the context of a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU. Such generalised access would jeopardise the balance which the EU legislature sought to ensure, in Regulation No 1/2003, between the obligation on the undertakings concerned to submit to the Commission possibly sensitive commercial information and the guarantee of increased protection, by virtue of the requirement of professional secrecy and business secrecy, for the information so provided to the Commission. Moreover, it follows from recital 6 of Regulation No 1049/2001 that the interest of the public in obtaining access to a document pursuant to the principle of transparency does not carry the same weight in the case of a document drawn up in an administrative procedure as in the case of a document relating to a procedure in which the EU institution acts in its capacity as legislator. (see paras 64-67) 5. See the text of the decision. (see paras 68, 69, 71) 6. See the text of the decision. (see paras 80, 81) 7. See the text of the decision. (see paras 82, 84) 8. Pursuant to Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001, as regards third-party documents, the institution must consult the third party with a view to assessing whether an exception in paragraph 1 or 2 is applicable, unless it is clear that the document shall or shall not be disclosed. It follows that Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not impose an obligation on the institutions to consult third parties in all circumstances. (see paras 96, 97) 9. See the text of the decision. (see para. 105) 10. According to Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 15(3) TFEU, the right of access to documents is subject to the principles and the conditions determined by the European Parliament and the Council by means of regulations, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Therefore, in the context of an action against a decision refusing access to documents, the EU judicature must review the legality of that decision exclusively by reference to Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, and not the legality of the latter in the light of Charter of Fundamental Rights, where no objection of illegality has been raised against the said regulation. (see paras 113, 114) 11. See the text of the decision. (see paras 118, 119) 12. The period of 15 working days within which the institution must reply to the confirmatory application, as laid down in Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, is mandatory. However, the expiry of that period does not have the effect of depriving the institution of the power to adopt a decision. The legislature has specified the consequences of failure to comply with the time limits laid down in Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, by providing, in Article 8(3) thereof, that such failure on the part of the institution is to give the applicant the right to institute judicial proceedings. Thus, if the Commission replies out of time to a request for access before the applicant has drawn inferences from the lack of response within the time limits in accordance with Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, by seeking judicial redress, however regrettable it may be that the time limits were not met, that delay does not taint the contested decision with unlawfulness justifying its annulment. (see paras 126-129)