EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/27

Action brought on 6 August 2015 — EEB v Commission

(Case T-448/15)

(2015/C 328/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the Commission to be in violation of the Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and the Aarhus Convention namely: a. Articles 1(1)(a), 3 and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) for failure to interpret these provisions in accordance with Article 4(1), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention and/or to directly apply Article 4(1), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention to environmental information, as Articles 3 and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 are incompatible with Article 4(1), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention and illegally extend the grounds of refusal of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) to environmental information; b. Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 for failure to interpret and apply the grounds of refusal of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a restrictive way and/or to take into account the public interest in disclosure of environmental information and/or the take into account that the information at issue relates to emissions into the environment;

— declare the Commission in violation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 namely: a. Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by not providing detailed reasons for refusing access to the documents concerned; b. Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by applying the first paragraph of this provision to documents related to a finalised decision-making process; c. Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for failure to assess in a sufficient way whether there was an overriding public interest in disclosure; d. Articles 6(3), 7(1) and (3) and 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for not undertaking any efforts to confer informally with a view to finding a fair solution and for not taking a decision within the prescribed time-limits;

— condemn the EU as represented by the Commission to repair any damage suffered by the EEB, including interest, as a result of the EEB not having timely access to the requested documents, which were not disclosed by the Commission in accordance with the time-limits prescribed in Articles 7(1) and (3) and 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, to an amount to be determined by the General Court, but not lower than 1 Euro;

— annul the Contested Commission Decision of 1 June 2015; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs of intervening parties annul the Contested Commission Decision of 1 June 2015.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on on the following arguments and pleas in law regarding violation by the Commission of Regulations (EC) No 1367/2006 and 1049/2001 and of the Aarhus Convention (3):

1. First plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 1(1)(a), 3 and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and/or Articles 4(1), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention. — The requested information qualifies as environmental information under the Aarhus Convention and under Articles 2(d)(iii), 3 and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006; — Articles 3 and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 are incompatible with Article 4(3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention and illegally extend the grounds of refusal of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to environmental information; — The Commission violated Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 regarding the restrictive interpretation of exceptions to the main rule of disclosure, regarding the obligation of the balancing of interests and regarding the ‘emissions rule’.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. — The ground of refusal of Article 4(3), first paragraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not apply to the documents requested; — Disclosure of the documents requested does not seriously undermine the Commission’s decision-making process; — Violation of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 where the Commission did not correctly balance the interests protected by non-disclosure against the public interest served with the disclosure of the documents concerned.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 7(1) and (3) and Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

4. Fourth plea in law, in relation to the action for damages under Article 340 TFEU, alleging the violation by the Commission of Article 7(1) and (3) and Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

(1) 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 L 264 of 25.9.2006, p. 13.

(2) 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 L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43.

(3) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, signed at Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, the Aarhus Convention, OJ L 124 of 17.5.2005, p. 1.