Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2014:267
Date: 2014-05-21
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 21 May 2014 1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Silence or inaction of an institution — Assimilation to an implied decision of refusal — Not included — Limits (Art. 263 TFEU) 2. EU law — Principles — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Administrative procedure — Criteria for assessment (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1)) 3. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Refusal to grant access — Requirement that the institution should examine the documents specifically and individually — Possibility of basing an argument on general presumptions applying to certain categories of documents — Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2)) 4. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4) 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 person concerned in defending himself — Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2) and (3)) 6. European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Regulation No 1073/1999 concerning investigations conducted by OLAF — Rights of defence — Scope — Right of access to the inquiry file — None save where final report published (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1073/1999 and No 1049/2001) 1. In the absence of express provisions laying down a deadline by which an implied decision will be deemed to have been taken by an institution which has been requested to adopt a position and prescribing the content of that decision, mere silence on the part of an institution cannot be deemed to be equivalent to a decision without calling into question the system of remedies instituted by the Treaty. According to that same line of case-law, in certain particular circumstances that principle may not be applicable, so that an institution’s silence or inaction may exceptionally be considered to constitute an implied refusal. (see paras 28, 29) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 34) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 42, 43) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 48, 53) 5. See the text of the decision. (see para. 61) 6. Irrespective of the rights provided for in Regulation No 1049/2001, OLAF is under no obligation to grant to a person who claims to be concerned by an ongoing investigation access to the documents in the file relating to that investigation. In that regard access to documents in OLAF’s files relating to an OLAF investigation — leaving aside the right of the person concerned to receive the written record of his or her interview with OLAF — actually takes place in the course of a monitoring procedure. Indeed, OLAF’s final recommendation will be submitted to the competent authorities of the European Union or to the national authorities. If those authorities intend to impose penalties on a person concerned by the investigation, namely, in the present case, the applicant, they must give that person the opportunity to exercise his or her rights of defence in accordance with the administrative or criminal-law procedure applicable. The applicant will therefore then be able to have recourse to the remedies made available by those authorities, subject to the procedural rules applicable. (see paras 63, 64)