Case T-168/02: Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-08-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), aeronautical industry, document, protected area, provision of documents

C 202/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.8.2002

Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler Tier-
schutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-168/02)

(2002/C 202/49)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler
Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH, represented by Scott Crosby,
Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of the Commission of 26 March 2002
refusing access to the documents held by the Commission
authored by the German authorities relating to the
expansion of the existing Daimler Chrysler Aerospace
GmbH plant on the Elbe in Hamburg for the final
assembly of the Airbus A3XX on an area intended for the
Natura 2000 network, as the same were identified in the
applicant’s initial application of 20 December 2001 in
Category B of Annex III to that application;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

According to the applicant,
the contested Decision also
infringes Article 4 of the Regulation taken as a whole. The
applicant claims that the purpose of the consultation of the
German authorities was to enable the Commission to make an
assessment whether an exception under Article 4(1) or 4(2)
was applicable. However, such an assessment was apparently
not made by the Commission.
the Commission
indicated that a Member State has the right to veto access to
documents emanating from it, which results, according to the
applicant, in a reintroduction of the ‘authorship rule’.

Instead,

The applicant claims furthermore that the contested Decision
does not set out adequate reasons for refusing access and
therefore infringes Article 253 of the EC Treaty. There is also
no reasoning as to why partial access to the documents was
denied.

The applicant finally indicates that there is a clear public
interest in the disclosure of those documents since the project
leading to the destruction of Mühlenberger Loch was the
subject of much public and media comment. Therefore, the
public should have knowledge of the facts underpinning the
Opinion of the Commission authorising the declassification of
Mühlenberger Loch in order to understand how that accords
with environmental objectives and principles.

(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
L 145, 31.5.2001 p. 43).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria
Ragazzini against European Parliament

The applicant sought access to certain documents concerning
the Opinion of the Commission of 19 April 2002 authorising
Germany to declassify the Mühlenberger Loch, an area protect-
ed under Council Directive 92/43/EEC as part of the Natura
2000 network. The applicant obtained access to part of these
documents. Access to the documents authored by the German
authorities and in the possession of the Commission was,
however, refused by the contested Decision following a request
to that effect made by the German authorities.

The applicant claims that the contested Decision constitutes a
breach of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). According
to the applicant, Article 4(5) of the Regulation has been
misinterpreted by the Commission. The applicant claims that,
according to the plain meaning of the words used, a request
by a third party does not place the Commission under
an absolute obligation to comply with that request in all
circumstances. The Commission indicated however in its
Decision that Member States have a right of veto under
Article 4(5) of the Regulation.

(Case T-170/02)

(2002/C 202/50)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria Ragazzini, residing in Faenza
(Italy), represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and
Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 20 Feb-
ruary 2002 not to grant her the benefit of Article 73 of
the Staff Regulations;