Action brought on 19 February 2004 by Yves Franchet and Daniel Byk against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Eurostat, access to information, action for annulment (EU), audit, report

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/63

Action brought on 19 February 2004 by Yves Franchet
and Daniel Byk against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-70/04)

(2004/C 94/158)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 February 2004 by Yves Franchet
and Daniel Byk,
represented by
residing in Luxembourg,
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the tacit decision of the Commission of the European
Communities refusing to grant the applicants' application
for access to various documents in the possession of that
institution and the Commission decision of 19 December
2003 rejecting the confirmatory application submitted by
the applicants on 2 December 2003;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicants object to the defendant's refusal to give them
access to certain documents relating to the EUROSTAT file. In
issue is,
in particular, the final report of the Internal Audit
Service (IAS) and the annexes to the report of the IAS of 7 July
2003.

The defendant bases its refusal on the exception laid down in
the third indent of Article 4(2) of 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 (1), namely the protection
of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits.

In support of their claims, the applicants argue:

— gives a broad meaning in the contested decision to the

exceptions it relies on;

— has clearly wrongly assessed the elements of the case;

— has failed to evaluate the applications for access in this case
in the light of the actual content of the documents in rela-
tion to the exceptions relied on, even assuming that they
can be relied upon. In addition, it did not give reasons why
partial communication could not have been envisaged;

— has failed to weigh up the interests in question.

(1) OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p.43

Action brought on 20 February 2004 by Anheuser-Busch,
Incorporated against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-71/04)

(2004/C 94/159)

(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of
the Rules of Procedure - language in which the case was submitted:
English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20
Incorporated, St. Louis,
February 2004 by Anheuser-Busch,
Missouri, USA, represented by Dr V.von Bomhard, Dr A. Renck
and Dr A. Pohlmann, lawyers.

Budejovicky Budvar, narodni podnik was a further party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

— infringement of Articles 2 and 4 of the abovementioned
regulation, of the fundamental right of access to documents
and of the principle of proportionality;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— the existence of a manifest error of assessment;

— disregard of the duty to state reasons.

— annul Decision R 1000/2001-2 of 3 December 2003 of the
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) inasmuch as it
rejected the contested mark ‘AB GENUINE BUDWEISER
KING OF BEERS’ for goods in Class 32

They take the view that the defendant:

— order the cost of proceedings to be borne by the defendant