Case T-142/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Dröge and Others v Commission
Date: 2016-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Member State, Member of Parliament, United States, confidentiality, infringement of EU law, negotiation of an agreement (EU), trade cooperation, transparency in decision-making








C_2016211EN.01005501.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/55






Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Dröge and Others v Commission
(Case T-142/16)
(2016/C 211/69)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Katharina Dröge (Berlin, Germany), Britta Haßelmann (Berlin) and Anton Hofreiter (Berlin) (represented by: Professor W. Cremer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the defendant’s unpublished and oral declaration of intention, aimed at the conclusion of a contract which is binding for the contracting parties — the European Union and the United States of America — and regarding the arrangements for accessing documents concerning the negotiations on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership (so-called TTIP documents), to be invalid or, in the alternative, contrary to EU law, in so far as it subsequently prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States without exception from being accompanied by (vetted) staff with the inclusion of political group staff when viewing the documents in TTIP reading rooms established for that purpose (see, concerning the access regime, Annex III to Council document No 14029/15);










—


declare the defendant’s prior and unpublished (oral) decision to approve the contract (‘the approval decision’), which is aimed at the submission of the aforementioned declaration of intention, to be invalid, in so far as it subsequently prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States without exception from being accompanied by (vetted) staff with the inclusion of political group staff when viewing the documents in TTIP reading rooms established for that purpose;










—


declare the defendant’s (oral) decision (‘the ordinance decision’) connected with the conclusion of a contract or a non-binding political agreement with the United States of America on the TTIP access regime and classifying that regime as binding under EU law to be invalid, in so far as it subsequently prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States without exception from being accompanied by (vetted) staff with the inclusion of political group staff when viewing the documents in TTIP reading rooms established for that purpose;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: Infringement of the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU
The applicants submit that the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU established a binding objective and legal requirement for the Union and its organs to take decisions as openly as possible. That optimisation requirement, enriched by the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU and geared towards the greatest possible transparency of Union action, is surmountable, provided that, in a given case, a justification in the form of a legitimate aim of EU law can be cited in opposition to it and that the limitation to attaining the objective is appropriate, necessary and proportionate. However, based on the possibility — which is withheld from national representatives — of accompaniment by vetted political group staff when accessing TTIP documents, such grounds do not exist.
In addition, there is also no justification for access to TTIP documents, as on display in the reading rooms, not being possible for Union citizens.
Furthermore, the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU has been infringed because the defendant’s TTIP negotiating mandate extends to objects which fall within the competence of the Member States.










2.


Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 15(1) TFEU in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU for the reasons mentioned in the first plea in law