62018TJ0485_RES
Case T‑485/18
Compañía de Tranvías de la Coruña, SA
v
European Commission
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber), 6 February 2020
(Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Commission documents relating to the interpretation of a provision of EU law — Documents originating from a third party — Documents originating from a Member State — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Partial refusal to grant access — Total refusal to grant access — Obligation to state reasons — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings — Overriding public interest)
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
(Art. 296, second para, TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4)
(see paragraphs 19-21, 87)
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of court proceedings – Scope – Observance of the principle of equality of arms – Principle of sound administration of justice and integrity of court proceedings – Application of those principles also to preliminary ruling proceedings
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), second indent)
(see paragraphs 38-40, 52-56)
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of court proceedings – Scope – Documents not drawn up solely for the purposes of court proceedings, but likely adversely to affect the capacity of the institution concerned to defend itself in those proceedings – Included – Conditions
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), second indent)
(see paragraphs 41-43)
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Documents originating from a Member State – Power of the Member State to request the institution not to disclose documents – Procedural implications – Obligation on the Member State and the EU institution to state reasons for the decision refusing access – Scope
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1) to (3) and (5), and (8))
(see paragraphs 68-70)
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 applicant – Not included
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2))
(see paragraphs 79-81)
Résumé
In the judgment in Compañia de Tranvías de la Coruña v Commission (T‑485/18), delivered on 6 February 2020, the Court upheld in part the action brought by Compañía de Tranvías de la Coruña, SA (‘the applicant’) for annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 7 June 2018, which, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001, (
1
) had refused, partially or totally, to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the Commission’s opinion sent to the French Republic concerning the fact that the metro lines contract is valid until 2039. The case gave the Court an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the protection of court proceedings within the meaning of Regulation No 1049/2001. (
2
)
On 19 December 2017, the applicant requested, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001, access to several documents of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport relating to the opinion sent by the Commission to the French Republic concerning the fact that the metro lines contract is valid until 2039.
On 7 June 2018, the Commission adopted the contested decision, by which it refused to grant total or partial access to 27 documents requested on the ground that their disclosure would affect the ongoing court proceedings in the cases that have since given rise to the judgment of 21 March 2019, Mobit and Autolinee Toscane, (
3
) and in the cases that have since given rise to the orders of 12 July 2018, RATP v Commission, (
4
) and of 12 September 2019, RATP v Commission. (
5
) It found, in essence, that all the documents to which access was totally or partially refused fell within the exception in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, on the ground that they were linked to the interpretation of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1370/2007, (
6
) which was at issue in the cases that gave rise to the judgment in Mobit and Autolinee Toscane.
Hearing an action for annulment of that Commission decision, the Court stated, first of all, that the protection of court proceedings requires, in particular, that the principle of equality of arms is observed and that the sound administration of justice and the integrity of court proceedings are guaranteed.
Next, the Court found that, in the present case, the disclosure of the internal documents of the Commission that were at issue, which were not drawn up for the purposes of specific court proceedings, was liable to affect the sound administration of justice, the integrity of the court proceedings, and the principle of equality of arms, in so far as those documents relate to the interpretation of the relevant provision of Regulation No 1370/2007 which, at the time of the adoption of the contested decision, was also at issue in court proceedings that were pending before the Court of Justice, namely, in the cases that gave rise to the judgment in Mobit and Autolinee Toscane.
First, as regards the sound administration of justice and the integrity of court proceedings, the Court held that the disclosure to the applicant of the internal documents at issue on the date of adoption of the contested decision would have had the effect of exposing judicial activities to external pressure, albeit only in the perception of the public, and would disturb the serenity of the proceedings before the Court of Justice. Secondly, as regards the principle of equality of arms, the Court noted that the disclosure of those documents was liable to lead to a public debate on the interpretation of the relevant provision of Regulation No 1370/2007. In such a situation, any criticism of the Commission could have influenced the position defended by it in the cases that gave rise to the judgment in Mobit and Autolinee Toscane and could therefore have infringed the principle of equality of arms.
Moreover, the Court considered that those assessments are not called into question by the fact that the ongoing court proceedings that gave rise to the judgment in Mobit and Autolinee Toscane were preliminary ruling proceedings. The criterion of sound administration of justice and the principle of equality of arms, the aim of which is to ensure a procedural balance between the parties to court proceedings, guaranteeing the equality of rights and obligations of those parties as regards, inter alia, the rules that govern the bringing of evidence and the adversarial hearing before the court, also apply to preliminary ruling proceedings.
Lastly, according to the Court, the fact that the applicant did not intervene in the case that gave rise to the judgment in Mobit and Autolinee Toscane does not invalidate those assessments either. Disclosure to the applicant of the information contained in the internal documents at issue would have enabled it to share that information with third parties or to give them very wide publicity. In such a situation, the other parties to those proceedings could have relied on that information in those proceedings against the Commission.
(
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).
(
2
)	Under the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the institutions are to refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of court proceedings, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the document at issue.
(
3
)	Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 March 2019, Mobit and Autolinee Toscane (C‑350/17 and C‑351/17, EU:C:2019:237).
(
4
)	Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018, RATP v Commission (T‑250/18 R, not published, EU:T:2018:458).
(
5
)	Order of the General Court of 12 September 2019, RATP v Commission (T‑250/18, not published, EU:T:2019:615).
(
6
)	Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).