CELEX: C1997/387/46
Language: en
Date: 1997-12-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 27 October 1997 by Milk Products Holdings (Europe) Limited and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-281/97)

20 . 12 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 387/25
Action brought on 27 October 1997 by Milk Products                    which, by letter dated 6 August 1997, confirmed the
Holdings ( Europe ) Limited and Others against the                    refusal to disclose key categories of documents.
          Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-281 /97 )                            The applicants state that irrespective of the commercial
                                                                      imperatives which motivated their request, they have a
                          ( 97/C 387/46 )                             legal right under the Code to the documents unless the
                                                                      Commission discharges its burden of demonstrating on the
                                                                      facts that the public-interest exception is applicable . They
                 (Language of the case: English)                      consider that this has not been the case because :
                                                                      — on         the    one    hand,       the     Commission   invokes
An action against the Commission of the European                            international relations as a specific ground for refusal
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           of access under the public-interest exceptions, but
Instance of the European Communities on 27 October                          without giving any substantive explanation as to why
1997 by Milk Products Holdings ( Europe ) Limited and                       or how the disclosure of documents relating to the
Others, represented by Richard McGrane, with an address                     introduction of the criteria in 1981 will have any
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Andre Marc,                     significant adverse impact on international relations,
56—58 Rue Charles Martel, Luxembourg.                                        and
The applicants claim that the Court should :                          — on the other hand, the Commission claims that
                                                                             disclosure of the documents to one party would
                                                                             interfere with the rights of defence of the other side
                                                                             and would therefore disturb court proceedings, but it
— annul the Commission Decisions of 29 May 1997 and                          does not set out the reasons justifying this assertion .
      6 August 1997 in so far as then relate to the refusal of
      access to the documents requested by the applicants,
                                                                      The applicants conclude therefore that, as a matter of law,
                                                                      the Commission has wholly failed to discharge its burden
— order the Commission to pay the costs of preparing                  of demonstrating that access to the documents could
      the application and these proceedings.                          actually 'undermine ' international relations or court
                                                                      proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   With regard to the ground invoked by the Secretariat­
                                                                       General in its decision and relating to the existence of an
                                                                       investigation by the service competent in matters
The applicants explain that the contested decisions arose              concerning fraud into the operation of the New Zealand
as a result of a continuing effort on their part to clarify            butter quota regime over recent years, the applicants stress
the meaning of the criteria to be met by New Zealand                   that this exception was not mentioned by DG I or DG VI,
 butter if it is to be eligible for preferential tariff                with the consequence that the applicants have not had the
 treatments, introduced by Council Regulation No 858/                  opportunity to be heard on this issue in the administrative
 81 ('). The need to clarify the meaning of the criteria and           procedure . In the applicants ' view, this constitutes a
 in particular the phrase 'manufactured directly from milk             breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing at the
 or cream' arises because the applicants are currently                 administrative stage .
 contesting a claim for retrospective duty from Her
 Majesty's Customs and Excise (' Customs') in the United               (') Council Regulation ( EEC) No 858/81 of 1 April 1981 relating
 Kingdom . It is their case that their products 'Ammix'                     to the import of New Zealand butter into the United Kingdom
 butter and spreadable butter should benefit from the                       on special terms ( OJ L 90 , 4 . 4 . 1981 , p. 18 ).
 preferential tariff arrangements because they are
 manufactured directly from milk or cream . Customs has
 however adopted the opposite position. A test case is
 currently before the relevant English tribunal .
                                                                        Action brought on 28 October 1997 by Antonio Giannini
 In order to clarify the meaning of this phrase by reference               against the Commission of the European Communities
  to the legislative intention of the Community institutions,                                     Case T-282/97)
  the applicants made requests to both DG I and DG VI for
  copies of documents concerning the preparation and                                               ( 97/C 387/47 )
  introduction     of   the     regulation  pursuant    to   the
  Commission 's Code on Public Access to Documents —
                                                                                          (Language of the case: French)
  Decision 94/90 ( the ' Code '). Both DG VI and DG I
  refused access to the documents by letters dated 29 May
  and 19 June 1997 . The applicants then lodged a request               An action against the Commission of the European
  for review of those decisions with the Secretariat-General,           Communities was brought before the Court of First