CELEX: 62016TN0307
Language: en
Date: 2016-06-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-307/16: Action brought on 17 June 2016 — CEE Bankwatch Network v Commission

22.8.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 305/39
            
         Action brought on 17 June 2016 — CEE Bankwatch Network v Commission
   (Case T-307/16)
   (2016/C 305/54)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: CEE Bankwatch Network (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: C. Kiss, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the contested Commission Decision of 15 April 2016, reference number Ref. GestDem No 2015/5866 null and void; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) is applicable to Euratom documents:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the word ‘Treaty’ should not be understood in different contexts regarding each piece of EU legislation, but that it should have a uniform meaning.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           access to the required documents does not endanger the interest of nuclear safety because the request for information did not affect nuclear safety issues;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the defendant seriously breached its obligation stemming from Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) and applicable case law of the EU Court to give specific reasons for non-disclosure.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the reference by the defendant to the protection of commercial interest is flawed and fails to specify the general considerations on which it bases the presumption that disclosure of the required documents would undermine commercial interest:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the information withheld by the defendant as affecting commercial interest does not satisfy the criteria of commercial information and its age is not taken into account when deciding by the defendant upon the confirmatory application;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested data given that public interest is in the disclosure of nuclear information.
                        
                     
         
      (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 L 264, 25.9.2006, 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 L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43)