EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/45

Action brought on 20 September 2010 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission

(Case T-449/10)

()

2010/C 346/90

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), Transport & Environment (Brussels, Belgium), European Environmental Bureau (Brussels, Belgium) and BirdLife International (Cambridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Hockman, QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision of 20 July 2010, the statutory negative reply under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), by which the Commission withheld from the applicant certain documents containing environmental information;

— order the Commission to provide access to all requested documents identified in the course of its review of the 2 April 2010 application and in the confirmatory application of 8 June 2010 unless protected under absolute exception in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, without delay or redaction; and

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening party.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of the Commission’s implied decision, rejecting the applicants’ request of the access to certain documents containing environmental information relating to greenhouse gas emissions resulting of production of biofuels as established or held by the Commission in the framework of the elaborating of a report foreseen in Article 19(6) of Directive 2009/28/EC (2).

In support of their application the applicants put forward the following pleas in law.

First, they argue that the Commission has infringed Articles 7(3) and 8(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 since it has failed to provide detailed reasons for requesting the extensions as granted on 27 April 2010 and 29 June 2010.

Second, the applicants submit that the Commission has infringed Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 since it has failed to provide detailed reasons for withholding each document. On 20 July 2010, the date of expiration of the time-limit prescribed in the regulation, the Commission refused to release the responsive documents and provided no detailed reasons for withholding them as required under the regulation and case-law.

Third, the applicants contend that the defendant has violated Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 since it has failed to carry out a concrete, individual assessment of the content of each document. On or before 20 July 2010, the date of expiration of the time-limit prescribed in the regulation, the Commission failed to perform, or make known, a concrete, individual assessment and determine whether the documents or any portion thereof fall under an exception to the general rule that all documents should be made accessible.

Fourth, they claim that the Commission has acted in violation of Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 and in violation of Article 6 of Regulation No 1367/2006 (3) as it has failed to fulfil legal obligations during the two-stage administrative procedure. The applicants submit that the Commission refused to release the documents or claim exceptions to justify their withholding.

(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) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.