Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2022:525
Date: 2022-09-07
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 30 July 2021 – Saure v Commission (Case T-448/21) 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 of 2 June 2021 refusing to grant the applicant’s requested access to Commission documents through the issuing of copies of all Commission communications (a) with the company BioNTech SE, (b) with the Federal Chancellery, Germany, regarding the company BioNTech SE and its products, (c) with the German Federal Minister for Health regarding the purchasing of vaccines to combat the coronavirus pandemic, from 1 April 2020 and in particular as regards the quantity of vaccines offered by BioNTech and their delivery times, in so far as it does not grant the applicant access or grants him access only in part; 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 five pleas in law. 1. 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 2. Second plea in law: The applicant submits that Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. The information requested is necessary in the interests of national security, public safety and the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder, and for the protection of health. Therefore, a potential interference with privacy and the integrity of the individual is permissible. Lastly, the disclosure of the information requested is of significant public interest. 3. Third plea in law: The applicant submits that the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. There is no ground of exclusion under that provision, since it provides for a ground for exclusion which is limited in time and relates only to ongoing legal advice. The applicant’s request for information, however, concerns only the completed operations. 4. Fourth plea in law: The applicant claims that the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. According to the applicant, only the current decision-making process is protected by that provision. The object of the applicant’s request for access to documents is, however, documentation concerning the defendant’s negotiations on vaccine deliveries. Those negotiations have already been completed. There is, moreover, an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the information at issue, since the EU’s vaccine procurement has been discussed and reported for weeks at European level. 5. Fifth plea in law: The applicant submits that the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. Disclosure of the information would not undermine the commercial interests of a natural or legal person. According to the applicant, the information requested does not contain any trade secrets within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2016/943. 1 ____________ 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). 1 Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ 2016 L 157, p. 1).