Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

(Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3))

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Action against a decision of the Commission to grant a third party access to documents emanating from a Member State objecting to such disclosure — Prima facie examination as to whether pleas invoked in support of the main action are well-founded — Judicial review — Scope

(Arts 256(1) TFEU and 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1) to (3) and (5))

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Prima facie examination of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action by a Member State against a decision of the Commission to grant a third party access to documents despite the opposition of that State — Assessment of that opposition — Major legal controversy following a restrictive interpretation by the Court of Justice subsequent to an extensive interpretation by the General Court — Existence of a prima facie case

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1) to (3))

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Concept — Purpose of the interim procedure — Full effect of the future decision on the substance

(Arts 256(1) TFEU and 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3))

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Irreparable nature of the damage — Concept — Damage resulting for a Member State from the disclosure of confidential information not capable of being remedied by financial compensation — Included

(Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3))

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 15, 16)

2. In interlocutory matters, concerning an application for suspension of operation of a decision of the Commission to grant a third party access to documents emanating from a Member State, Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001, regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, places the Member States in a position that is different from that of other document-holders, by providing that, unlike them, a Member State may request the institution not to disclose a document originating from that Member State without its prior agreement. In relation to the extent and the degree of review that the institution has over the reasons for non-disclosure put forward by a Member State, the institution in question is responsible for examining whether the Member State has based its objection on the substantive exceptions listed in Article 4(1) to (3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and whether it has duly provided reasons for its position in that regard.

Since the Court hearing the application for interim measures must carry out a prima facie review of a Commission decision to grant a third party access to documents emanating from a Member State which has opposed such disclosure, in which the Commission, in turn, carried out a prima facie examination of the merits of the reasons advanced by that Member State, the assessment of this issue involves a degree of review that is subject to a twofold restriction. Consequently the existence of a prima facie case could only be excluded in the event of it being so clear and obvious that the exceptions relied upon by the Member State were inapplicable that reliance upon them amounted to an abuse of procedure on the part of the latter.

(see paras 26, 29, 38)

3. In interlocutory matters, the condition that there must be a prima facie case is satisfied where at least one of the pleas in law put forward by the applicant for interim measures in support of the main action appears, prima facie, not unfounded to the extent that it reveals, at the stage of the interim proceedings, a major legal disagreement whose resolution is not immediately obvious.

In the case of an application for suspension of the operation of a decision of the Commission to grant a third party access to documents emanating from a Member State, which has opposed such disclosure by invoking the exceptions laid down by Article 4(1) to (3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the Court hearing the application, confronted, on the one hand, by case-law of the Court of Justice according to which the institution to which a request for access to a document has been made does not have to carry out an exhaustive assessment of the decision of the Member State in question to object by conducting a review going beyond the verification of the mere existence of reasons referring to those exceptions, and, on the other hand, by an apparently more extensive case-law of the General Court, according to which the assessment to be carried out by the institution consists in determining whether the reasons given by the Member State for its objection to disclosure of the requested document are capable of justifying prima facie such refusal, in order to be sure that those grounds were not without basis, can only conclude that the argument between the parties reveals, at the stage of the interim proceedings, a major legal disagreement whose resolution is not immediately obvious and which will need to be examined in depth by the court adjudicating on the substance.

(see paras 21, 30, 31, 36)

4. The weighing up of the various interests involved requires the judge hearing the application for interim measures to determine whether or not the applicant’s interest in obtaining the interim measures sought outweighs the interest in immediate application of the contested measure by examining, more specifically, whether annulment of that measure by the court hearing the main application would allow the situation which would have been brought about by its immediate operation to be reversed, and, conversely, whether suspension of its operation would prevent it from being fully effective in the event of the main application being dismissed.

As regards the condition that the legal situation created by an interim order must be reversible, the purpose of the procedure for interim measures is to guarantee the full effectiveness of the future decision in the main action. Consequently, those proceedings are necessarily an adjunct to the main proceedings to which they are attached, so that the decision of the court hearing the application for interim measures must be provisional in the sense that it cannot either prejudge the future decision in the main proceedings or deprive it of all practical effect.

(see paras 46, 47)

5. Concerning an application for interim measures emanating from a Member State, the Member States are responsible for those interests which are regarded as general interests at national level. Consequently they may defend them in proceedings for interim measures and seek the grant of interim measures by asserting, inter alia, that the contested measure could seriously jeopardise performance of their State tasks.

Damage resulting for a Member State from disclosure by the Commission of information presumed to be confidential and which is not pecuniary damage cannot, in particular, be recouped by damages obtained through a compensation action brought against the Commission.

(see paras 52, 57, 61)