Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH v European Commission.
Date: 2017-07-13
50


According to settled case-law, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in an appeal is limited to a review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the General Court. Consequently, a party cannot put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the General Court since that would allow that party to bring before the Court of Justice, whose jurisdiction in appeal proceedings is limited, a wider case than that heard by the General Court (order of the President of the Court of Justice of 7 July 2016, Fapricela v Commission, C‑510/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:547, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).
51


However, an argument which was not raised at first instance does not constitute a new plea that is inadmissible at the appeal stage if it is simply an amplification of an argument already developed in the context of a plea set out in the application before the General Court (judgment of 10 April 2014, Areva and Others v Commission, C‑247/11 P and C‑253/11 P, EU:C:2014:257, paragraph 114 and the case-law cited).
57


In that regard, it should be borne in mind that Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice specifies that the pleas in law and legal arguments relied on must identify precisely those points in the grounds of the decision of the General Court which are contested. An appeal that fails to identify which points of the judgment under appeal are being contested and the alleged error of law by the General Court is inadmissible (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 September 2016, NIOC and Others v Council, C‑595/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:721, paragraphs 95 and 96).
60


As a preliminary observation, it should be noted that, in accordance with the first recital of Regulation No 1049/2001, that regulation reflects the intention expressed in the second paragraph of Article 1 of the EU Treaty — inserted by the Treaty of Amsterdam — of marking a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. As is stated in recital 2 in the preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001, the right of public access to documents of the institutions is related to the democratic nature of those institutions (judgment of 1 July 2008, Sweden and Turco v Council, C‑39/05 P and C‑52/05 P, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 34).
61


To that end, Regulation No 1049/2001 is designed — as is stated in recital 4 and reflected in Article 1 — to confer on the public as wide a right of access as possible to documents of the institutions (judgment of 14 November 2013, LPN and Finland v Commission, C‑514/11 P and C‑605/11 P, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
62


That right of access is of course subject to certain limitations based on grounds of public or private interest. More specifically, and in reflection of recital 11 in the preamble thereto, Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 sets out a series of exceptions allowing the institutions to refuse access to a document where its disclosure would undermine the protection of one of the interests protected by that provision (judgment of 21 September 2010, Sweden and Others v API and Commission, C‑514/07 P, C‑528/07 P and C‑532/07 P, EU:C:2010:541, paragraphs 70 and 71 and the case-law cited).
63


Nevertheless, as such exceptions depart from the principle of the widest possible public access to documents, they must be interpreted and applied strictly (judgments of 18 December 2007, Sweden v Commission, C‑64/05 P, EU:C:2007:802, paragraph 66, and of 21 July 2011, Sweden v MyTravel and Commission, C‑506/08 P, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 75).
64


As regards environmental information held by the institutions and bodies of the European Union, Regulation No 1367/2006 aims, as provided for in Article 1 thereof, to ensure the widest possible systematic availability and dissemination thereof (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 November 2016, Commission v Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe, C‑673/13 P, EU:C:2016:889, paragraph 52).
65


Although, pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 1367/2006, Regulation No 1049/2001, and in particular Article 4 thereof, is to apply to any request by an applicant for access to environmental information held by European Union institutions, Article 6 of Regulation No 1367/2006 adds more specific rules concerning such requests which in part favour and in part restrict the access to the documents (judgment of 14 November 2013, LPN and Finland v Commission, C‑514/11 P and C‑605/11 P, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 53).
66


In particular, the second sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 provides that, as regards the other exceptions set out in the first sentence of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the grounds for refusal are to be interpreted in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure and whether the information requested relates to emissions into the environment (judgment of 14 November 2013, LPN and Finland v Commission, C‑514/11 P and C‑605/11 P, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 83).
85


Lastly, it should be borne in mind that, although the administrative activity of the Commission does not require as extensive an access to documents as that concerning the legislative activity of a Union institution, that does not in any way mean that such an activity falls outside the scope of Regulation No 1049/2001 which, as provided in Article 2(3) thereof, applies to all documents held by an institution, that is to say drawn up or received by it and in its possession, in all areas of Union activity (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 July 2011, Sweden v MyTravel and Commission, C‑506/08 P, EU:C:2011:496, paragraphs 87 and 88 and the case-law cited).