Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Case T‑185/19

Public.Resource.Org, Inc.  
and  
Right to Know CLG

v

European Commission

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), 14 July 2021

(Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Harmonised standards – Documents concerning four harmonised standards approved by CEN – Refusal to grant access – Exception related to the protection of a third party’s commercial interests – Protection stemming from copyright)

1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Need for a vested and present interest – Assessment at the time when the action was brought – Action capable of procuring an advantage for the applicant – Burden of proof

   (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU)

   (see paragraphs 16, 17)
2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action against a decision by an institution refusing access to documents – Admissibility

   (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001)

   (see paragraphs 18, 20-22)
3. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Documents emanating from third parties – Requirement for prior consultation of the third parties concerned – Scope – Obligation to abide by a third party’s refusal to disclose documents – None – Discretion of the Commission

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1), (2) and (4), and Art. 8)

   (see paragraphs 29, 30, 32-34)
4. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of a third party’s commercial interests – Protection stemming from copyright – Review by the institution – Scope – Identification of objective and consistent evidence – Copyright protection for harmonised standards

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), first indent, and (4))

   (see paragraphs 40-43, 45-49, 57, 59)
5. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Harmonised technical standard adopted on the basis of a regulation and published in the Official Journal of the European Union – Freely available access without charge – None

   (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), and No 1025/2012, Arts 2(c) and 10(6))

   (see paragraphs 52-54)
6. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of the commercial interests of a given person – Scope – Harmonised standards – Included

   (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), first indent, and No 1025/2012, Art. 10)

   (see paragraphs 63-67, 69-73)
7. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Refusal to grant access – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Requirement to respond to all the arguments put forward in the confirmatory request for access – None

   (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4)

   (see paragraphs 82-84, 91)
8. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents – Burden of proof

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2))

   (see paragraphs 97, 98)
9. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of commercial interests – Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents – Concept – Freely available access to harmonised standards without charge – Not included

   (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), and No 1025/2012)

   (see paragraphs 100-104, 107)
10. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Request for access concerning environmental information – Regulation No 1367/2006 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Public interest justifying the disclosure of documents – Concept

    (Aarhus Convention, Art. 5(3)(b); European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4, and No 1367/2006, Arts 1, 4(2)(a) and 6(1))

    (see paragraphs 114-119)
11. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Request for access concerning environmental information – Regulation No 1367/2006 – Information relating to emissions into the environment – Concept – Sufficiency of a direct link between the information and the relevant emissions – Not permissible

    (Aarhus Convention, Art. 4(4), first subpara., point (d); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006, Arts 1(1)(b), 2(1)(d) and 6(1))

    (see paragraphs 120-126)

Résumé

Public.Resource.Org, Inc. and Right to Know CLG, the applicants, are non-profit organisations whose main focus is to make the law freely accessible to all citizens. On 25 September 2018, they made a request to the European Commission for access to four harmonised standards adopted by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) concerning, in particular, the safety of toys. (
[1](#t-ECR_62019TJ0185_RES_EN_01-E0001)
)

The Commission refused to grant the request for access on the ground that those standards were protected by copyright. The refusal was based on the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (
[2](#t-ECR_62019TJ0185_RES_EN_01-E0002)
) pursuant to which access to a document must be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

The General Court dismisses the action brought by the applicants and clarifies the scope of the review to be carried out by the EU institutions in order to find that there is an effect on commercial interests stemming from copyright protection for requested documents.

The Court’s assessment

In the first place, the Court finds that the applicants have an interest in obtaining disclosure of the requested harmonised standards. In that regard, it reiterates that a person who is refused access to a document has, by virtue of that very fact, established an interest in the annulment of the decision refusing access. Furthermore, the Court states that the possibility of consulting the requested harmonised standards on site in certain libraries does not affect the applicants’ interest in bringing proceedings since, by that consultation, they do not obtain full satisfaction in the light of the objective which they pursue, which is to obtain freely available access to those standards without charge. As regards paid access to those standards, the Court finds that it also does not correspond to the objective pursued by the applicants.

In the second place, the Court holds that the Commission complied with the scope of the review required of it when applying the exception relating to the protection stemming from copyright.

First of all, the Court states that ultimate responsibility for the proper application of Regulation No 1049/2001 lies with the institution to which the request for access is addressed. In that regard, it observes that if that institution considers that it is clear that access to a document emanating from a third party must be refused because of copyright protection, it must refuse access to the applicant without even having to consult the third party from whom the document emanates.

Next, the Court notes that copyright remains largely governed by national law and that the extent of the protection conferred by copyright is governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed. It then states that it is for the authority which has received a request for access to documents from a third party, where there is a claim for copyright protection for those documents, inter alia, to identify objective and consistent evidence such as to confirm the existence of the copyright claimed by the third party concerned. Such a review corresponds in fact to the requirements inherent in the division of competences between the European Union and the Member States in the field of copyright.

Lastly, the Court observes that in the present case the Commission based its finding on the existence of copyright protection for the requested harmonised standards on objective and consistent evidence such as to support the existence of the copyright claimed by CEN for those standards. In addition, it finds that the Commission did not err in finding that the necessary threshold of originality to be covered by copyright protection had been met for the harmonised standards in question.

In the third place, the Court finds that there was no overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of the requested harmonised standards. In that regard, the Court points out that the onus is on the party arguing for the existence of an overriding public interest to rely on specific circumstances to justify the disclosure of the documents concerned. The applicants put forward a generic ground that harmonised standards form part of ‘EU law’ which should be freely accessible to the public without charge, without explaining in what respect such considerations ought to prevail over the protection of the commercial interests of CEN or its national members. Accordingly, the Court endorses the Commission’s assessment that the public interest in ensuring the functioning of the European standardisation system prevails over the guarantee of freely available access to the harmonised standards without charge. In addition, it points out that the applicants do not explain why those standards should be subject to the requirement of publication and accessibility attached to a ‘law’, inasmuch as such standards are not mandatory and produce the legal effects attached to them solely with regard to the persons concerned.

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62019TJ0185_RES_EN_01-E0001)
) The standards concerned are EN 71-5:2015, entitled ‘Safety of toys – Part 5: Chemical toys (sets) other than experimental sets’; EN 71-4:2013, entitled ‘Safety of toys – Part 4: Experimental sets for chemistry and related activities’; EN 71-12:2013, entitled ‘Safety of toys – Part 12: N-Nitrosamines and N-nitrosatable substances’; and EN 12472:2005 + A1:2009, entitled ‘Method for the simulation of wear and corrosion for the detection of nickel released from coated items’.

(
[2](#c-ECR_62019TJ0185_RES_EN_01-E0002)
) 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](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:L:2001:145:TOC)).

[Top](#document1)