Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1999:308
Date: 1999-12-07
Language of the case: German
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;Documents originating from a Member State;Documents originating from other categories of third parties;Obligation to state reasons;Protection of court proceedings and legal advice
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Commission — Right of public access to Commission documents — Decision 94/90 — 
Exceptions to the principle of access to documents — Protection of the public 
interest — Judicial proceedings — Scope 
(Commission Decision 94/90) 
II - 3521 
SUMMARY — CASE T-92/98 
2. Commission — Right of public access to Commission documents — Decision 94/90 — 
Exceptions to the principle of access to documents — Rule on authorship — Scope — 
To be narrowly construed — Refusal of access to documents from the Member States 
or a non-member country 
(Final Act of the Treaty on European Union, Annex 17; Commission Decision 94/90) 
3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commis­
sion decision refusing access to documents from the Member States or a non-member 
country 
(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC); Commission Decision 94/90) 
1. Although, in accordance with the Code 
of Conduct adopted by Decision 94/90 
on public access to Commission docu­
ments, the right of access to documents 
is subject to two categories of excep­
tion, those exceptions must be inter­
preted strictly, in order not to frustrate 
the application of the general principle 
of giving the public the widest possible 
access to documents held by the Com­
mission. 
In respect of the exception based on 
protection of the public interest, the 
expression 'court proceedings' must be 
interpreted as meaning that the protec­
tion of the public interest precludes 
disclosure of the content of documents 
drawn up by the Commission solely for 
the purposes of specific court proceed­
ings. That encompasses not only the 
pleadings or other documents lodged, 
internal documents concerning the 
investigation of the case before the 
court, but also correspondence con­
cerning the case between the Directo­
rate-General concerned and the Legal 
Service or a lawyers' office. 
However, the exception based on the 
protection of public interest (court 
proceedings) contained in the Code of 
Conduct cannot enable the Commis­
sion to escape from its obligation to 
disclose documents which have been 
drawn up in connection with a purely 
administrative matter, even if the dis­
closure of such documents in proceed­
ings before the Community judicature 
may be prejudicial to the Commission. 
The fact that court proceedings for 
annulment have been initiated against 
the decision taken following the 
administrative procedure is immaterial 
in that regard. 
Decision 94/90 applies generally to 
requests for access to documents ema­
nating from the public. Whilst an 
undertaking may have been able, in 
its capacity as applicant in proceedings 
before the Court of First Instance, to 
rely on the provisions of the Rules of 
Procedure relating to measures of orga­
nisation of the procedure or the rights 
II - 3522 
INTERPORC V COMMISSION 
of the defence in order to obtain some 
of the documents requested in its initial 
application to the Commission, it none 
the less retains the option of requesting 
access to the same documents pursuant 
to Decision 94/90. 
2. Decision 94/90 on public access to 
Commission documents provides that 
where a document held by an institu­
tion was written by a natural or legal 
person, a Member State, another Com­
munity institution or body or any other 
national or international body, the 
application must be sent direct to the 
author. So long as there is no rule of 
law of a higher order according to 
which the Commission was not 
empowered, in Decision 94/90, to 
exclude from the scope of the Code of 
Conduct adopted by that Decision 
documents of which it was not the 
author, the authorship rule may be 
applied. The fact that Decision 94/90 
makes reference to declarations of 
general policy, such as the Declaration 
on the right of access to information in 
Annex 17 to the Final Act of the Treaty 
on European Union and the conclu­
sions of several European Councils, 
does not alter that finding, since such 
declarations do not have the force of a 
rule of law of a higher order. 
In so far as the authorship rule lays 
down an exception to a general princi­
ple, it must be construed and applied 
strictly, so as not to frustrate the 
application of the general principle of 
transparency expressed in Decision 
94/90. 
In taking the view that it was not 
required to grant access to certain 
documents from Member States or the 
authorities of a non-member country, 
the Commission has applied the 
authorship rule correctly and cannot, 
therefore, have committed an abuse of 
rights. 
3. The obligation to state reasons, laid 
down in Article 190 of the Treaty (now 
Article 253 EC), means that the rea­
soning 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. 
A Commission decision refusing access 
to certain documents from the Member 
States or the authorities of a non-
member country gives sufficient rea­
sons if it refers to the authorship rule 
set out in the Code of Conduct adopted 
by Decision 94/90 on public access to 
Commission documents and informs 
the applicant that it should request a 
copy of the documents in question 
from the Member States and the autho­
rities of the non-member country con­
cerned. 
II - 3523