Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:97
Date: 2018-02-27
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Czechia

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 27 February 2018 1. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Strict interpretation and application (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Recitals 4 and 11 and Arts 1 and 4) 2. 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2)) 3. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Request for access concerning environmental information — Regulation No 1367/2006 — Scope — Documents relating to decisions taken under the EAEC Treaty — Not included (Art. 15 TFEU; Art. 106 bis, (1), EA; European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001 and No 1367/2006) 4. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the public interest — Judicial review — Scope — Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(a), 3rd indent) 5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case (Art. 296 TFEU) 6. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Mandatory exceptions — Prior balancing of the interests at stake — Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(a) and (2)) 7. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of commercial interests — Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents — Meaning — Burden of proof (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2)) 8. Actions for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of legality in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the measure (Art. 263 TFEU) 9. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Pleas based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1)) 10. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Defence — Obligation to answer all of the applicant’s arguments — None — Effects of the content of the defence on the contested measure — None (Statute of the Court of Justice; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 81) 11. 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 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 42 and 52(2); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 30, 31, 34, 104) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 35, 105) 3. Not being a party to the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, the European Atomic Energy Community, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, cannot be subject to the obligations contained in Regulation No 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of that convention to Community institutions and bodies. In that regard, the measures adopted under the EAEC Treaty are not necessarily subject to the obligations applicable within the framework of the European Union. The European Atomic Energy Community and the European Community, now the European Union, are indeed separate organisations established by separate treaties, with separate legal personalities and each subject to specific rules. Thus, the rules applicable within the framework of the European Atomic Energy Community are provided for by the EAEC Treaty. One such rule is Article 106a(1) EA, which, for the functioning of the European Atomic Energy Community, renders applicable certain provisions of the EU and FEU Treaties, in particular Article 15 TFEU, formerly Article 255 EC, which forms the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. Based on a provision applicable to the European Atomic Energy Community, the regulation, which establishes general rules for access to documents of the institutions, is intended to apply without it being disputed by the applicant, to documents held by the institutions and bodies operating in that context. Finally, Regulation No 1367/2006 refers specifically to the institutions and bodies of the European Community, without contemplating its application to other entities, for example, institutions or bodies under the European Atomic Energy Community. (see paras 46-48, 50) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 77-79) 5. See the text of the decision. (see para. 80) 6. See the text of the decision. (see para. 81) 7. See the text of the decision. (see paras 126, 127) 8. The lawfulness of a measure taken by an institution is to be assessed in the light of the information available to it when it was adopted. In proceedings before the EU judicature, no one, therefore, can rely on matters of fact which were not put forward in the course of the administrative procedure. (see para. 133) 9. See the text of the decision. (see para. 140) 10. It follows neither from the Statute of the Court nor its Rules of Procedure that the defendant is required to respond to each of the arguments put forward by the applicant in the application. In addition, the content of a defence cannot have any impact on the lawfulness of the contested decision. Indeed, it must be examined as at the time when the decision is adopted. (see para. 141) 11. See the text of the decision. (see para. 142)