CELEX: C2002/202/49
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-168/02: Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

C 202/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.8.2002
Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler Tier-                    According to the applicant, the contested Decision also
schutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH against the Commission of                        infringes Article 4 of the Regulation taken as a whole. The
                  the European Communities                                applicant claims that the purpose of the consultation of the
                                                                          German authorities was to enable the Commission to make an
                                                                          assessment whether an exception under Article 4(1) or 4(2)
                         (Case T-168/02)                                  was applicable. However, such an assessment was apparently
                                                                          not made by the Commission. Instead, the Commission
                                                                          indicated that a Member State has the right to veto access to
                         (2002/C 202/49)                                  documents emanating from it, which results, according to the
                                                                          applicant, in a reintroduction of the ‘authorship rule’.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          The applicant claims furthermore that the contested Decision
                                                                          does not set out adequate reasons for refusing access and
                                                                          therefore infringes Article 253 of the EC Treaty. There is also
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 no reasoning as to why partial access to the documents was
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                denied.
European Communities on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler
Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH, represented by Scott Crosby,
                                                                          The applicant finally indicates that there is a clear public
Solicitor.
                                                                          interest in the disclosure of those documents since the project
                                                                          leading to the destruction of Mühlenberger Loch was the
                                                                          subject of much public and media comment. Therefore, the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               public should have knowledge of the facts underpinning the
                                                                          Opinion of the Commission authorising the declassification of
—     annul the Decision of the Commission of 26 March 2002               Mühlenberger Loch in order to understand how that accords
      refusing access to the documents held by the Commission             with environmental objectives and principles.
      authored by the German authorities relating to the
      expansion of the existing Daimler Chrysler Aerospace
      GmbH plant on the Elbe in Hamburg for the final                     (1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
      assembly of the Airbus A3XX on an area intended for the                 of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
                                                                              European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ
      Natura 2000 network, as the same were identified in the                 L 145, 31.5.2001 p. 43).
      applicant’s initial application of 20 December 2001 in
      Category B of Annex III to that application;
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria
                                                                                      Ragazzini against European Parliament
The applicant sought access to certain documents concerning                                       (Case T-170/02)
the Opinion of the Commission of 19 April 2002 authorising
Germany to declassify the Mühlenberger Loch, an area protect-
ed under Council Directive 92/43/EEC as part of the Natura                                        (2002/C 202/50)
2000 network. The applicant obtained access to part of these
documents. Access to the documents authored by the German                                    (Language of the case: French)
authorities and in the possession of the Commission was,
however, refused by the contested Decision following a request
to that effect made by the German authorities.
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the contested Decision constitutes a            29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria Ragazzini, residing in Faenza
breach of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). According             (Italy), represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and
to the applicant, Article 4(5) of the Regulation has been                 Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.
misinterpreted by the Commission. The applicant claims that,
according to the plain meaning of the words used, a request
by a third party does not place the Commission under                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
an absolute obligation to comply with that request in all
circumstances. The Commission indicated however in its                    —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 20 Feb-
Decision that Member States have a right of veto under                          ruary 2002 not to grant her the benefit of Article 73 of
Article 4(5) of the Regulation.                                                 the Staff Regulations;