Case T-42/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Williams v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Preparatory documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC on GMOs — Partial refusal of access — Implied refusal of access — Exceptions relating to the protection of commercial interests, protection of international relations and protection of the decision-making process — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2008-09-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, access to EU information, action for annulment (EU), genetically modified organism, provision of documents, research staff, student

C 272/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.10.2008

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September
2008 — Evropaïki Dinamiki v Commission

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September
2008 — Williams v Commission

(Case T-465/04) (1)

(Case T-42/05) (1)

(Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure
— Provision of computer and related services linked to the
information systems of the Directorate-General for Fisheries
— Rejection of a submitted tender — Obligation to state the
reasons on which the decision is based)

(Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 —
Preparatory documents relating to the adoption of Directive
2001/18/EC on GMOs — Partial refusal of access — Implied
refusal of access — Exceptions relating to the protection of
commercial interests, protection of international relations and
protection of the decision-making process — Obligation to
state reasons)

(2008/C 272/28)

Language of the case: English

(2008/C 272/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepiki-
nonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (repre-
sented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented: initially by K. Banks, and subsequently by M. Wilderspin
and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of
the Commission's decision of
15 September 2004 not to accept the tender submitted by the
applicant in the tendering procedure relating to the provision of
computer and related services linked to the information systems
of
for Fisheries, and to award the
contract to the successful tenderer.

the Directorate-General

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. The Commission's decision to reject the tender submitted by Evro-
païki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis
kai Tilematikis AE and to award the contract to the successful
tenderer in the tendering procedure ‘FISH/2004/02’ is annulled.

Parties

Applicant: Rhiannon Williams (Brussels, Belgium)
by: S. Crosby, C. Bryant, Solicitors, and R. Lang, lawyer)

(represented

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Docksey and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as
Agents)

Re:

the Commission's decision of
Application for annulment of
19 November 2004 partially refusing the applicant access to
certain preparatory documents in respect of the legislation on
genetically-modified organisms.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no further need to rule on the lawfulness of
the Commission's decision of 19 November 2004 partially refusing
Ms Rhiannon Williams access to certain preparatory documents in
respect of the legislation on genetically-modified organisms in so far
as it may include an implied refusal of access to preparatory docu-
ments from the Commission's Directorate-General (DG) for Trade
relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate
release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and
repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC;

2. Annuls the Commission's decision of 19 November 2004 in so far
as it impliedly refused access to preparatory documents relating to
the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC other than those produced
by the Trade DG;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

2. The Commission is ordered to pay all of the costs.

4. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one half

of those incurred by Ms Williams.

(1) OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

(1) OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.