CELEX: 62011TN0278
Language: en
Date: 2011-05-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-278/11: Action brought on 25 May 2011 — ClientEarth and others/Commission

23.7.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 219/20
            
         Action brought on 25 May 2011 — ClientEarth and others/Commission
   (Case T-278/11)
   2011/C 219/32
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), Friends of the Earth Europe (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Stichting Fern (Leiden, Netherlands); and Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the Commission in violation of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Declare the Commission in violation of the Aarhus Convention (2);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Declare the Commission in violation of Regulation No 1367/2006 (3);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the Decision under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, by which there was an implied negative decision the failure by the Commission to reply within the prescribed time-limits to the applicants’ confirmatory application;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Grant injunctive relief as provided for by the Aarhus Convention Article 9(4) ordering the Commission to provide within a set timeframe access to all requested documents, unless protected under an absolute exception in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The applicants request the annulment of the Commission’s refusal of their request to grant access to documents related to the voluntary certification schemes seeking recognition from the Commission under Article 18 of Directive 2009/28 (4).
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 8(2) of regulation No 1049/2001 due to the Commission’s failure to provide a reply within the prescribed time and to give detailed reasons for requesting an extension.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of regulation No 1049/2001 due to the Commission’s failure to reply within the extended time limit.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 7 and 8 of regulation No 1049/2001 due to the Commission’s failure to provide detailed reasons for withholding each document.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 6, 7 and 8 of regulation No 1049/2001 due to the Commission’s failure to provide a concrete, individual assessment of the content of each document.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(4) of the Aarhus Convention, Article 4(2) of regulation No 1049/2001 and Article 6 of Regulation No 1367/2006 due to the reliance upon the exception for the protection of commercial interests.
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention, Article 4(3) of regulation No 1049/2001 and Article 6 of Regulation No 1367/2006 due to the application of the exception that the disclosure of the documents would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process.
            
         
               7.
            
            
               Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) and 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in that the Commission failed to assess which part of the documents could or could not be disclosed and failed to assess the period of application of the applicable exception.
            
         
      (1)  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, p. 43).
   
      (2)  UN/ECE Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters.
   
      (3)  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, p. 13).
   
      (4)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ L 140, p. 16).