Case T-111/11: Action brought on 21 February 2011 — ClientEarth v Commission
Date: 2011-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, access to information, access to the courts, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental monitoring, transparency in decision-making








C_2011130EN.01001601.xml










30.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/16





Action brought on 21 February 2011 — ClientEarth v Commission
(Case T-111/11)
2011/C 130/29
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


declare the Commission in violation of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;










—


declare the Commission in violation of Regulation No 1367/2006 (1);










—


declare the Commission in violation of Regulation No 1049/2001 (2);










—


annul the implied decision under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, which is the failure by the Commission to reply within the prescribed time-limits to the applicants confirmatory application by which the Commission withheld the requested documents; and










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs, including the costs of any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Articles 8(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 for not replying within the prescribed time-limits to the applicant’s confirmatory application and not providing detailed reasons for doing so.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(1)(2) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters for failure to provide the applicant access to the requested conformity-checking studies and implementation action plans and to provide detailed reasons to do so. The contested decision also violates Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 for failure to interpret the exceptions provided under Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 in a restrictive way.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 1367/2006 for not disseminating the requested information in the registers of the Commission.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 7 of Regulation No 1367/2006 for not informing the applicant to which Directorate General it should request to have access to the documents concerning Directives 1998/81/EC (3) and 2001/18/EC (4) or transferring the request to the relevant Directorate General.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001 for failure to provide the applicant access to the requested conformity-checking studies and implementation action plans. The disclosure of the requested documents would not undermine the protection of the purpose of investigations under Article 4(2) or prevent the proper conduct of potential infringement procedures based on Article 258 of the TFEU. The contested decision violates Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 for failure to provide partial access to the requested documents.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation No 1049/2001. The disclosure of the requested documents would not seriously undermine the Commission’s decision-making process.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(2) last indent and Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 for failure to assess whether there is an overriding public interest in disclosure and to provide a detailed statement of reasons for such a refusal.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)

(2)  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)

(3)  Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 13)

(4)  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 — Commission Declaration (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1)