Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2011:634
Date: 2011-10-26
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents;Acts of the institutions
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: France

summary of the pleas advanced. An application seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution must, in order to satisfy those requirements, state the evidence on which, in particular, the damage claimed to have been suffered may be identified as well as the nature and extent of that damage (Case C‑327/97 P Apostolidis and Others v Commission [1999] ECR I‑6709, paragraph 37). 195 In the present case, in support of his claim for compensation, the applicant maintains that, as a result of the ECB’s refusal to grant him access to the databases referred to in his application for access, the completion of his doctoral thesis is being delayed and that, in addition, once it has been completed, its scientific quality will be adversely affected. 196 It must, for that reason, be concluded that, in substance, by his claim for damages the applicant is seeking to obtain compensation in respect of non-material harm allegedly arising from the adoption of the contested decision, and that he has identified, to the requisite legal standard, the nature and extent of that harm. It follows that, contrary to the ECB’s submission, that claim is admissible. 197 As to the merits, however, it is premature and must be rejected on that ground (see, to that effect, Case T‑478/93 Wafer Zoo v Commission [1995] ECR II‑1479, paragraphs 49 and 50, and Case T‑300/97 Latino v Commission [1999] ECR‑SC I‑A‑259 and II‑1263, paragraphs 95 and 101). Indeed, at the hearing, the applicant stated, in response to a question from the Court, that the submission of his doctoral thesis had been postponed and was due in September 2012. He added that that delay was due not only to the lack of information that he might have obtained, but also to other factors. Note was taken of these statements in the transcript of the hearing. 198 Since the contested decision must be annulled (see paragraph 184 above), the ECB will be required to re-examine the applicant’s request for access. It cannot, a priori, be ruled out that, following such re-examination, the ECB will provide access to the data contained in its databases, including those which the applicant allegedly requires in order to write his thesis, and within such period of time as will allow the thesis to be submitted in September 2012. Nor may it be ruled out that, for some legitimate reason, the ECB will refuse him such access, wholly or in part. It follows that, at the present moment, the Court is not in a position to examine whether the applicant will suffer any damage as a result of the refusal in the contested decision of his request for access to documents, or whether such hypothetical damage could be attributed to unlawful conduct on the part of the ECB. 199 Consequently, the claim for damages must be dismissed. Costs 200 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the ECB has been essentially unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant. 201 The Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Commission must bear their own respective costs, in accordance with Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber) hereby: 1. Annuls the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB), notified to Mr Julien Dufour by letter of the President of the ECB of 2 September 2009; 2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 3. Orders the ECB to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Dufour; 4. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs. Czúcz Labucka Gratsias Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 26 October 2011. [Signatures] Table of contents Legal context Background to the dispute Procedure and forms of order sought The application for annulment 1. Admissibility Arguments of the parties Findings of the Court 2. Substance The statement of reasons for the contested decision Arguments of the parties Findings of the Court The second plea in law, alleging an error of law in that, in the contested decision, the ECB wrongly took the view that the databases were not documents within the meaning of Article 3(a) of Decision 2004/258 Arguments of the parties Findings of the Court – The term ‘database’ – Analysis of the definition of the term ‘document’, appearing in Article 3(a) of Decision 2004/258 – The subject-matter of the applicant’s request for access – Classification of the entirety of the data contained in a database as a document within the meaning of Article 3(a) of Decision 2004/258 – The alleged practical difficulties ensuing from a right of access to an institution’s databases – The arguments derived from the preparatory work for Regulation No 1049/2001 and from the other documents relied on by the parties – Conclusion 3. The claim for damages Arguments of the parties Findings of the Court Costs * Language of the case: French.