Case C-52/05 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2005 by Maurizio Turco against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-84/03 between Maurizio Turco, supported by Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of Sweden and Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Finland, General Court (EU), access to EU information, action for annulment (EU), confidentiality, interpretation of the law

C 106/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2005

On the other hand, the Court of First Instance upheld the
Council's assertion that there was a general need for confidenti-
ality for legal opinions in legislative matters. That was so, first,
because the disclosure of documents of that type could give
rise to doubt as to the lawfulness of the legislation in question,
and, second, because the maintenance of the independence of
opinions from the Council's legal service can constitute an
interest worthy of protection. On that basis, the Court of First
Instance found that the Council did not make an error of judg-
ment in refusing access to the legal opinion on the basis of the
exception in the second indent of Article 4(2) of the openness
regulation.

In the view of the Swedish Government, that conclusion is
incompatible with the obligation to assess the question of
disclosure in the light of the content of the specific document.
That finding of the Court of First Instance thus infringed Com-
munity law.

(1) OJ C 112, 10/05/2003, p. 38.
(2) OJ L 145, 31/05/2001, p. 43.

Appeal brought on 9 February 2005 by Maurizio Turco
against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2004 by
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-84/03 between Maurizio
Turco, supported by Republic of Finland, Kingdom of
Denmark and Kingdom of Sweden and Council of the
European Union, supported by United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case C-52/05 P)

(2005/C 106/28)

(Language of procedure: English)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 November
2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities in Case T-84/03 (1) between Maurizio
Turco, supported by Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Denmark
and Kingdom of Sweden and Council of the European Union,
supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and Commission of the European Communities, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 9 February 2005 by Maurizio Turco, residing in
Pulsano (Italy), represented by O. W. Brouwer and C. E. Schille-
manns, lawyers,

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23

November 2004 by which it:

a) dismissed the action brought by the Appellant in so far
as it concerns the refusal of access to Document No
9077/02, containing an opinion of the Council
legal
service concerning a proposal for a Council Directive
laying down minimum standards for the reception of
Appellants for asylum in Member States;

b) ordered the Appellant and the Council each to bear half

of the costs of the proceedings

— when necessary, refer the case back to the Court of First

Instance for judgment;

— order the Council to pay the costs,

including the costs

incurred by eventual intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance contains errors of law in its interpretation and applica-
tion of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001
regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and
Commission documents (the Regulation).

The grounds of appeal and legal arguments on which the
Appellant relies are that the Court of First Instance in the
present case:

(i) did not give the correct interpretation and application of
the term ‘legal advice’ in Article 4(2) of the Regulation;

(ii) wrongly qualified the legal opinion as ‘legal advice’ within
the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Regulation and contra-
vened the scope and content of Articles 4(2) and 4(3) and
the inherent set up and structure of the Regulation;

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/15

(iii) wrongly interpreted and applied (the Community case-law
establishing)
the principle that widest possible access
should be granted to documents held by the Community
from this principle
institutions and that derogations
should be construed as restrictively as possible;

(iv) misinterpreted and misapplied (the Community case-law
establishing) the principle that requests for access to docu-
ments should be assessed on a case-by-case basis;

(v) misinterpreted and misapplied the concept of ‘overriding
public interests’ and committed an error in law by placing
the burden of proof in this respect on the Appellant;

(vi) violated the Community law principle that the Communi-

ty's legal order is based on the rule of law; and

(vii) did not provide sufficient

reasoning and omitted to
respond to specific arguments put forward by the Appel-
lant.

(1) OJ C 112, 10/05/2003, p. 38.
(2) OJ L 145, 31/05/2001, p. 43.

Action brought on 11 February 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-69/05)

(2005/C 106/29)

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(2000/C/28/02), which state that

Article 21(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22
March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 of the EC Treaty)
provides that ‘Member States shall submit to the Commission
annual reports on all existing aid schemes with regard to which
no specific reporting obligations have been imposed in a condi-
tional decision’. The submission of those reports in the agri-
cultural sector is governed by the ‘Guidelines for State aid in
the agriculture sector’
‘a
single report should be presented to the Commission, for the
first time before 1 July 2001, and thereafter no later than 30
June each year, covering all aid schemes for the agricultural
sector in the Member State concerned’. The binding nature of
guidelines in the field of State aid which have been accepted as
appropriate measures by a Member State has been confirmed
by the case-law of the Court of Justice. The guidelines for State
aid in the agricultural sector were accepted by the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg, since it never stated in writing that it
contested the appropriate measures in those guidelines. Conse-
quently, by failing to communicate the reports in question for
the years 2000 and 2001, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations.

(1) OJ L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 16 February 2005 (by fax/email on 11
February 2005) by the Federal Republic of Germany
against the judgment delivered on 1 December 2004 by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-27/02
between Kronofrance SA and the Commission of the
European Communities, supported by Glunz AG and OSB
Deutschland GmbH

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 11 February 2005 by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, represented by Florence Clotuche-Duvieu-
sart and Agnieszka Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

(Case C-75/05 P)

(2005/C 106/30)

The Commission claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: German)

1. declare that, by failing to communicate, before 1 July 2001
and no later than 30 June 2002, annual reports on all
existing State aid schemes during 2000 and 2001 in the
agricultural sector, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 88(1) of the EC
Treaty and Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No
659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for
the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1)
(now
Article 88 of the EC Treaty), as implemented by the Guide-
lines for State aid in the agriculture sector (2000/C/28/02);

2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 December 2004
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-27/02
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
between Kronofrance SA and the Commission of the European
Communities, supported by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland
GmbH, was brought before the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities on 16 February 2005 (by fax/email on 11
February 2005) by the Federal Republic of Germany, repre-
sented by W.-D. Plessing and C. Schulze-Bahr, of the Federal
Ministry of Finance, Berlin, Germany, acting as Agents, as well
as by Dr. M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, Germany.