Case T-209/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 2006 — European Association of Im — and Exporters of Birds and live Animals and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Application for interim measures and suspension of enforcement — Admissibility — Urgency — None)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), animal disease, bird, health control, import restriction, infectious disease, protection of animals

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/59

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26
October 2006 — European Association of
Im — and
Exporters of Birds and live Animals and Others v Commis-
sion of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case T-209/06 R)

— Declare the action admissible;

(Application for interim measures — Application for interim
measures and suspension of enforcement — Admissibility —
Urgency — None)

— Annul the Commission's decision of 27 July 2006, in that it
refuses the applicant access to the Commission's documents
sought;

(2006/C 326/127)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: European Association of Im — and Exporters of
Birds and live Animals (West Maas en Waal, Netherlands), Vere-
niging van Im- en Exporteurs van Vogels en Hobbydieren (West
Maas en Waal), Plomps Vogelhandel (Woerden, Netherlands) and
Borgstein Birds & Zoofood Trading (West Maas en Waal) (repre-
sented by: J. Wouters, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: F. Erlbacher and M. van Heezik, Agents)

Re:

Application for, first, suspension of enforcement of Commission
Decision 2006/522/EC of 25 July 2006 amending Decisions
2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC as regards certain protection
measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and
movements of certain live birds into the Community (OJ 2006
L 205, p. 28), and, second, the grant of all other necessary
interim measures.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.

Action brought on 25 October 2006 — Leclercq v
Commission

(Case T-299/06)

(2006/C 326/128)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sylvie Leclercq (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C.
Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— Order the defendant to pay the costs;

— Order the defendant, in respect of its non-contractual liabi-
lity, to pay the applicant EUR 50 per day from the date of
the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision
of 27 July 2006, adopted by the Secretary-General of
the
Commission, rejecting her confirmatory application for access
to an extract from the databases containing information relating
to the Commission's staff. The reasons for refusal put forward
by the Commission were that the application was outside the
scope of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) on the ground that, in
it was not an application for access to an existing
this case,
document held by the institution, within the meaning of that
regulation.

In support of her action, the applicant relies on two pleas in
law. The first alleges infringement of Article 3(a) of Regulation
No 1049/2001 on the ground that, in the contested decision,
the Commission excludes a database from the meaning of ‘docu-
ment’. The applicant claims that the Commission made a mani-
fest error of assessment by making such exclusion which is not
provided for by the regulation and goes against the broad inter-
pretation which should be given, in the applicant's submission,
to the meaning of ‘document’ in Regulation No 1049/2001.

The second plea in law alleges infringement of Article 4 of
Regulation No 1049/2001 and of the duty to state reasons on
the ground that the Commission did not state in the contested
decision how the disclosure of the document sought would
undermine a public or private interest so that
it could be
refused on the basis of one of the exceptions in Article 4 of the
regulation.

The applicant claims that the Commission's conduct, which she
alleges to be unlawful because contrary to Regulation No
1049/2001, is capable of giving rise to its non-contractual liabi-
lity under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC. She therefore
claims compensation for the losses, both pecuniary and non-
pecuniary, which the Commission's conduct has caused her.

(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 2001 L 145, p.
43).