Interporc v Commision T12496

8/7/2019 Interporc v Commision T12496

1/19

INTERPORC v COMMISSION

J U D G M E N T O F T H E C O U R T O F F IR S T I N S TA N C E( T h i r d C h a m b e r, E x t e n d e d C o m p o s i t i o n )

6 February 1998*

In Case T-124/96 ,

I n t e r p o r c I m - u n d E x p o r t G m b H , a com pan y inco rpora t ed un de r Germ an Law,es tab l i shed in Hamburg , Germany, represented by Georg M. Berr i sch , Rechtsan

wal t , Hamburg , wi th an address for se rv ice in Luxembourg a t the Chambers ofGuy Har l e s , 8 -10 Rue Math ia s Hard t ,

appl icant ,

v

C o m m i s s i o n o f t h e E u r o p ea n C o m m u n i t i e s , represented by Ulr ich Wlker, of i tsLegal Service, act ing as Agent , with an address for service in Luxembourg at theoff ice of Carlos Gmez de la Cruz, of i ts Legal Service, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg,

defendant ,

A P P L IC A T IO N fo r annu lm en t of t he Co mm iss ion ' s dec i sion o f 29 May 1996confirming i ts refusal to grant the appl icant access to cer tain of i ts documents ,

* Language of the case: German .

II - 233


2/19

JUDGMENT OF 6. 2. 1998 CASE T-124/96

T H E C O U R T O F F IR S T IN S T A N C EO F T H E E U R O P E A N C O M M U N I T I E S(Th i rd Chamber, Ex tended Compos i t i on ) ,

com po sed of: B. Vesterdorf , Pres iden t , C . P. Brit , P. Lin dh , A . Po toc ki andJ . D . Cooke , Judges ,

Registrar : A. Mair, A dm inistrato r,

having regard to the wr i t ten procedure and fur ther to the hear ing on21 O c t o b e r1997,

gives the following

J u d g m e n t

Legal f ramework

1 In the F ina l Act of the Trea ty on European Union s igned a t Maas t r ich t on 7 Februa ry 1992 the Me m be r States inc orp ora ted a D eclar at ion (N o 17) on the r ight ofaccess to information, in these terms:

'The Conference cons iders tha t t ransparency of the dec is ion-making processs t rengthen s the democra t ic na ture of the ins t i tu t ions and the pub l ic ' s confidence inthe adminis t ra t ion . The Conference accord ingly recommends tha t the Commiss ionsubmi t to the Counci l no la te r than 1993 a repor t on measures des igned toimprove publ ic access to the information avai lable to the inst i tut ions. '

II - 234


3/19


2 In respon se to the M aas t r ich t Declara t ion , the Co m mi ss io n un de r to ok a com parat ive survey on the rules governing publ ic access to information in the MemberSta tes and in some non-member count r ies . The resu l t s of i t s survey were summar ised in Co m m un ica t io n 9 3/C 156/05 to the Cou nci l , the Par l iament and th eEconomic and Socia l Commit tee on publ ic access to the ins t i tu t ions ' documents(OJ 1993 C 156, p . 5 , here inaf te r ' the 1993 com m un ica t io n ' ) . In th a t co m m un icat ion i t concluded that there was a case for developing fur ther the access to documen t s a t Communi ty l eve l .

3 O n 2 June 1993 , t he Co mm iss ion adop ted Co mm unic a t ion 93 /C 166 /04 on o penness in the C o m m un it y ( O J 1993 C 166, p . 4) , set t ing ou t the basic pr incip les g overn ing access to documents .

4 O n 6 De cem ber 1993, the Co un ci l and the Co m m iss io n drafted an d jo in t lyadop ted a Co de o f Con du c t conce rn ing pub l i c access t o Cou nc i l and Co mm iss iondocuments ( ' the Code of Conduct ' ) and under took each to take the necessarys teps to imp leme nt the pr inc ip les set ou t in the Co de of C o nd uc t before 1 Janu ary1994.

5 In implementa t ion of tha t agreement the Commiss ion adopted , on 8 February1994, on the bas is of Ar t ic le 162 of the EC Trea ty, Decis ion 94/90/ECSC, EC,Eura tom on pub l i c acces s t o Commiss ion documen t s (OJ1994 L 46, p. 58). Article

1 of that decis ion formally adopted the Code of Conduct , the text of which isannexed to the decis ion.

II - 235


4/19


6 The Code of Conduct se t s ou t the fo l lowing genera l pr inc ip le :

'The publ ic wi l l have the wides t poss ib le access to documents he ld by the Commiss ion and the Counci l .

"Document" means any w r i t ten tex t , wh atever i ts mediu m, which conta ins ex is t ingdata and i s he ld by the Commiss ion or the Counci l . '

7 The factors which may be rel ied upon by an inst i tut ion as grounds for reject ing arequest for access to documents are l is ted in the Code of Conduct in the fol lowingt e rms:

'The inst i tut ions wil l refuse access to any document where disclosure could undermine :

the protect ion of the publ ic interest (publ ic securi ty, internat ional relat ions,monetary s tab i l i ty, cour t p roceedings , inspec t ions and inves t iga t ions) ,

the protect ion of the individual and of pr ivacy,

the pro tect ion of com me rcial and industr ia l secrecy,

the pro te c t ion of the C om m u ni ty ' s financia l in te res t s ,

the protect ion of confident ial i ty as requested by the natural or legal personsthat suppl ied the info rm ation or as req uire d by the legis lat ion of the M em be rState that supp l ied the info rma tion .

They may also refuse access in order to protect the inst i tut ion 's interest in the confidentiality of its pr oc ee di ng s.'

II - 236


5/19


8 O n 4 M arch 1994, the Co m mi ss ion ad opted a com m un ica t io n on impro ved accessto do cu m en ts (O J 1994 C 67, p . 5 , hereinafter ' th e 1994 co m m un ica t io n ' ) , givingdetai ls of the cr i ter ia for implementat ion of Decis ion 94/90. That communicat ionstates that 'anyone may . .. ask for access to any unp ubl i s hed Co m mi ss ion doc ument , inc luding prepara tory documents and o ther explana tory mater ia l ' . Fur thermore , the Commiss ion 'guarantees tha t appl ica t ions for access to documents wi l lbe trea ted fa ir ly and w i th in a reasonable pe r iod ' . In tha t regard , the co m m un icat ion specif ies: 'Applicants for Commission documents wil l receive an answerwi th in one month ' . Wi th regard to the except ions provided for in the Code ofConduct , the communica t ion s ta tes tha t the Commiss ion 'may take the v iew tha taccess to a do cu m en t should be refused becau se i ts disclo sure could un de rm inepublic and private interests and the good funct ioning of the inst i tut ion. . . . ' On thatpoin t , the communica t ion s t resses : 'There i s no th ing au tomat ic about the exemp

t i ons , and each requ est for access to a do cu m en t wil l be consid ered on i ts ow nmer i t s . '

Factua l background to the case

9 Each yea r, t he Com m un i ty open s a so -ca ll ed 'H i l t o n ' quo ta . U nd e r t ha t qu o ta ,cer tain quant i t ies of high-qual i ty beef ( 'Hil ton Beef ' ) f rom Argent ina may beimported into the Community free of any levies . In order to qual i fy for that

exem ption , a cer ti f icate of auth ent ici ty from the Arg ent ine autho ri t ies is required .

10 The Commission was informed that cer t i f icates of authent ici ty had been found tohave been fals i f ied and, in col laborat ion with the customs authori t ies of the Member States , ini t ia ted inquir ies into the m atter in la te 1992 and ear ly 1993. W he n thecustoms authori t ies came to the conclusion that fa ls i f ied cer t i f icates of authent ici tyhad been presented to them, they took ac t ion for pos t -c learance recovery of theimpor t du ty.

II - 237


6/19

JUDGM ENT OF 6. 2. 1998 CASE T-124/96

1 1 Af ter those fal si fica tions had been d iscovered , the Ge rm an author i t ies soug ht po s t -clearance recovery of import duty from the appl icant , which requested remissionof that duty, claiming that i t had presented the certificates of authenticity in goodfai th and that cer tain deficiencies in the control procedure were at t r ibutable to thecompetent Argent ine au thor i t ies and to the Commiss ion .

12 By decis ion of 26 Jan ua ry 1996, add ressed t o th e Fede ral Re pu blic of Ge rm any , theCommiss ion cons idered tha t the appl icant ' s reques t for remiss ion of the impor tduty was not just i f ied.

1 3 By le t te r of 23 February 1996 to the Secre ta ry-Genera l of the Commiss ion and tothe Direc tors -G enera l of Di re c tora tes -G ener a l ( 'D G ' ) I , VI and X X I , the appl icant ' s l awyer reques ted access to cer ta in documents re la t ing to cont ro l proceduresfor imports of Hil ton Beef and to the inquir ies which gave r ise to the Germanauthori t ies ' decis ions to effect post-clearance recovery of import duty. The requestconcerned 10 categories of document: (1) the declarat ions of the Member States ofquant i t ies of H i l to n Beef im po r ted f rom Arg ent in a be tween 1985 and 1992, (2) thedeclarat ions of the Argent ine authori t ies of quant i t ies of Hil ton Beef exported to

the Communi ty in the same per iod , (3) the Commiss ion ' s in te rna l records drawnup on the basis of those declarat ions, (4) the documents relat ing to the opening ofthe 'Hi l ton ' quota , (5) the documents re la t ing to the des igna t ion of the bodiesresponsible for issuing cer t i f icates of authent ici ty, (6) the documents relat ing to theag reemen t conc luded be tween the Communi ty and Argen t ina conce rn ing a r educt ion in the quota fol lowing discovery of the fals i f icat ions, (7) any reports of inquiries in to the Commiss ion ' s cont ro l procedures as regards the 'Hi l ton ' quota in 1991and 1992, (8) the documents relat ing to inquir ies into any i r regular i t ies in importsbetw een 1985 and 1988, (9) the views of D G VI and D G X X I on decis ions tak enin other similar cases and (10) the minutes of the meet ings of the group of expertsf rom the Member S ta tes on 2 and 4 December 1995.

II - 238


7/19


14 By let ter of 22 March 1996, th e Director-General of D G VI refused the request foraccess as regards the cor respondence wi th the Argent ine au thor i t ies and therecords of the d iscuss ions pr ior to the grant ing and opening of the 'Hi l ton ' quotasand as regards the cor respondence wi th the Argent ine au thor i t ies fo l lowing thediscovery of the falsified certificates of authenticity. That refusal was based on theexcept ion for protect ion of the publ ic interest ( internat ional relat ions) . As regardsthe remain ing documents , the Direc tor-Genera l a l so re fused access to those emanat ing f rom the Member S ta tes or the Argent ine au thor i t ies , on the ground tha tthe appl icant should address i ts request direct ly to the various authors of thosed o c u m e n t s .

15 By le t te r of 25 M arch 1996, the Direc to r-G ene ra l of D G X X I re fused the req ues tfor access to the report of the internal inquiry into the fals i f icat ions drawn up bythe Commission, basing that refusal on the except ion for protect ion of the publ icinterest ( inspect ions and invest igat ions) and the except ion for protect ion of theindiv idua l and of pr ivacy. As regards the pos i t io ns taken by D G V I and D G X X Iconcern ing o ther reques ts for remiss ion of impor t du ty and the minutes of themeet ings of the comm it tee of exper t s f rom the Me m be r S tates , the Dire c tor-Ge nera l of D G X X I refused access to the do cu m en ts on the basis of the excep t ion

for protect ion of the inst i tut ion 's interest in the confident ial i ty of i ts proceedings.As regards the remaining documents , he refused access to those emanat ing fromthe Member S ta tes , on the ground tha t the appl icant should address i t s reques td i rec t ly to the var ious au thors of those documents .

16 By let ter of 27 March 1996, the appl icant ' s l awy er subm i t ted a conf i rm atory appl ica t ion wi th in the meaning of the Code of Conduct to the Secre ta ry-Genera l of theCommission. In that le t ter, he chal lenged the just i f icat ion for the grounds onwh ich the Direc tors -G enera l of D G V I and D G X X I re fused access to the do cum e n t s .

17 By appl icat ion lodged at the Registry of the Court of Firs t Instance on 12April1996, the appl icant and two o ther German f i rms brought an ac t ion for annulment

of the C om m iss ion ' s dec is ion of 26 Jan ua ry 1996 (Case T-50/96Primex andOthers v Commission).

II - 239


8/19

JUDGME NT OF 6. 2. 1998 CASE T-124/96

18 By let ter of 29 M ay 1996, the Secreta ry-G ener al of the Co m m iss ion rejected theconfirmatory appl icat ion. That le t ter ( ' the contested decis ion ' ) was couched in thefo l lowing te rms:

'Following an examinat ion of your request , I regret to have to inform you that Iconf i rm the dec is ion of D G V I and D G X X I for the fo l lowing reasons .

Th e docu me nts reques ted a ll con cern a Co m m iss io n dec is ion of 26 Janu ary 1996(doc . C O M (C)96 180 f inal) w hi ch has s ince be co m e th e sub ject-m atter of anappl ica t ion for annulment brought by your representa t ive (Case T-50/96) .

Consequent ly, and wi thout pre judice to o ther except ions which might jus t i fyrefusing access to the documents requested, the except ion for protect ion of thepubl ic in te res t (cour t p roceedings) i s appl icable . The Code of Conduct cannotobl ige the Co m mis s ion , as a par ty t o a pen ding ac t ion , to provid e the o ther par tywi th documents re la t ing to the d ispute . '

19 By let ter lodge d at the C ou rt R egistry on 25 Ju ne 1996 in the conte xt of CaseT-50/96 , the appl icant reques ted the Cour t to order product ion of the documentsrequested as a measure of organisat ion of the procedure.

Procedure and forms of order sought

20 By appl ica t ion lodged a t the Regis t ry of the Cour t o f F i rs t Ins tance on 9 Augus t1996, the appl icant brought the present act ion. The case was al located to aChamber of three judges. After hearing the part ies , the Court , by decis ion of

2 Ju ly 1997, ass igned the case to the Thi rd Chamber, Extended Composi t ion , composed of five judges.

II - 240


9/19


21 U p o n hear ing the rep or t of the Jud ge-R app or teu r, the C ou r t o f F i rs t Ins tance(Th i rd Chamber, Ex tended Compos i t i on ) dec ided to open the o ra l p rocedurewi thout any prepara tory measures of inqui ry.

2 2 At the hear ing in open cour t on 21 October 1997 the par t ies presented ora l a rgument and rep l ied to the Cour t ' s o ra l ques t ions .

2 3 The appl icant c la ims tha t the Cour t should :

annu l the contes ted dec is ion;

declare that the Commission is not ent i t led to refuse access to the documentsspecified in the le t ter of 23 Fe br ua ry 1996 from the app l icant 's lawy er to theSecretary-General o f t he Commiss ion ; and

order the Commiss ion to pay the cos ts .

2 4 The Commiss ion con tends tha t t he Cour t shou ld :

dismiss the appl icat ion for direct ions to be issued as inadmissible;

dismiss the rem aind er of the appl ica t ion as un fou nd ed; and

order the appl icant to pay the cos ts .

II - 241


10/19


The f i rs t head of c la im, seeking annulment of the contested decis ion

2 5 In support of i ts appl icat ion, the appl icant puts forward three pleas in law. Thefirs t a l leges infr ingement of the Code of Conduct and of Decis ion 94/90. The second al leges infr ingement of Art ic le 190 of the Treaty. The third plea, which wasp u t forwa rd at the hearin g, a lleges infr ingem ent of the r igh t to a fair hearing in thatthe Secretary -Ge nera l re lied, in the conteste d decis ion, on a ne w gro un d for refusing access wh ich had n ot prev ious ly been pu t forw ard .

2 6 In the circumstances of this case, i t is appropriate to examine the f i rs t two pleastoge ther.

The first and second pleas taken together, alleging infringement of the Code ofConduct and of Decision 94/90 and infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty

Arguments of the par t ies

Inf r ingement of Decis ion 94/90 and the Code of Conduct

2 7 The applicant notes, first of all , that the Commission refused its request for accessto the documents on the so le ground tha t the except ion for pro tec t ion of thepublic interest (court proceedings) was appl icable . By so doing, however, theCommission infr inged the provis ions relat ing to the except ions to the r ight ofaccess to documents la id down in the Code of Conduct and thus in Decis ion94 /90 .

II - 242


11/19


2 8 I t po in ts ou t tha t Decis ion 94/90 and the Code of Conduct a re b inding on theCo mm iss ion . Those measures p lace a lega l ob l iga t ion on the C om m iss io n to g ivethe publ ic the widest possible access to documents held by i t (CaseT-105/95 WWFUK v Commission [1997] ECR I I -313 , parag raph 55 , and C ase T-194/94 Carveland Guardian Newspapers v Council [1995] ECR I I -2765 , which conce rns t heequiva len t dec is ion adopted by the Counci l Counci l Decis ion93/731/EC of 20De cem ber 1993 on pub l ic access to C oun ci l do cum ents (O J 1993 L 340, p . 43) ).

2 9 The except ions to the r ight of access to documents should be interpreted s t r ic t ly inorder not to frustrate the specif ic a im of the Code of Conduct , which is to give the

publ ic ' the wides t poss ib le access to documents ' .

3 0 Th e appl icant subm i ts tha t the Co m m iss io n is no t en ti t led to apply the ex cept ionsin a genera l way. In order to de te rmine whether d isc losure of a document i s p recluded by one of the except ions, the Commission should f i rs t weigh the interestswhich the except ion in quest ion is intended to protect against the overal l a im ofthe Code of Conduct and then es tab l i sh for each document the ' impera t ive rea

s o n s ' just i fying appl icat ion of the except ion (Case C-2/88 Imm.Zwartveld andOthers [1990] ECR I -4405 , pa rag raphs 11 and 12).

31 Th e Com mis s ion is w ro ng t o cons ider, re ly ing on the except ion for pro tec t ion ofthe publ ic interest (court proceedings) , that i t is empowered to refuse access to anydocument relat ing to a decis ion which is the subject of an act ion for annulment .Such a pos i t ion by th e Com mis s ion w ou ld ten d to in te r fe re wi th the jud ic ia l p r ocess.

32 Having re fused access to the documents reques ted on the ground tha t they mightbe used aga ins t the Commiss ion as the defendant in cour t p roceedings , thecontes ted dec is ion could have the consequence tha t a number of Commiss ion dec is ions might escape judicial review. As a publ ic administrat ion act ing in the general

in te res t , the Commiss ion should not be en t i t l ed to wi thhold tex ts which i t adoptsfrom such review by keeping them secret .

II - 243


12/19

JUDGM ENT OF 6. 2. 1998 CASE T-124/96

3 3 The except ion in quest ion should be interpreted in accordance with point 2 .2 ofthe 1993 com m unic a t ion , w hich l i s ts the in te res ts suppo sed to be pro tec ted by tha texcept ion in the laws of the Member States . In fact , i t covers only informationl ikely to damage the invest igat ion of cr iminal offences and the prosecut ion ofoffenders.

3 4 Final ly, the Commission 's posi t ion in the present case is contradicted by i ts observa t ions submi t ted in the Primex case, referred to above, on the request for mea

sures of organisa t ion of the procedure seeking product ion of those same documents . In tha t case , the Co m m iss io n cons idered tha t the do cum ents we re no tre levant to the proceedings .

3 5 Whilst accept ing that i t is important f rom a pol i t ical point of view for the publ ic tohave access to documents he ld by the Communi ty ins t i tu t ions , the Commiss ionquest ions whether the pr inciple of access to documents , as set out in the declarat ions on t ransparency, is important f rom a legal point of view. As regards the legalvalue of Decis ion 94/90, i t s t resses that that decis ion was adopted under the framework of i t s power of in te rna l organisa t ion , which au thor i ses i t to take appropr ia temeasures in order to ensure i ts internal operat ion in conformity with the interestsof good adminis t ra t ion (Case C-58/94Netherlands v Council [1996] ECR I -2169,paragraph 37) .

3 6 The Commiss ion submi ts , f i r s t , tha t the except ion for pro tec t ion of the publ icinterest (court proceedings) authorises i t , in the context of Decis ion 94/90, not tomake avai lable to the publ ic and to the appl icant al l documents relat ing topending proceedings. For that except ion to be appl icable , i t considers i t is enough

tha t the documents reques ted concern the pending proceedings and re la te to the i rsubject-matter, as is the case here.

II-244


13/19


3 7 Any other interpretat ion would be l ikely ser iously to jeopardise the r ight to a fairhearing an d thu s th e pu bl ic interest . Ev en if i ts r ights as a defen dan t mig ht wel l n o tbe harmed by the d isc losure of each and every document , the Commiss ion cons iders that i t would not be able to prepare an adequate defence i f , as the appl icantclaims, i t had to prove the importance of each document for the legal proceedings.I t denies that i t has to put forward ' imperat ive reasons ' in order to be able torefuse a requ est for access to do cu m en ts .

3 8 Th e 1993 com mu nica t io n do es not lead to any d i ffe ren t in te rp re ta t ion . Th e except ion in the Co de of Co nd uc t i s wid er in scope than the equiva len t except ionsunder nat ional law, s ince the Code of Conduct does not specify the restr ic t ive particular of 'judicial secrecy ' added in the descr ipt ion of the equivalent except ionsunder nat ional law.

3 9 Secondly, the Commiss ion submi ts tha t the ques t ion whether the appl icant mayhave access to the documents requested must be set t led on the basis of the Rules ofProcedure of the Cour t o f F i rs t Ins tance concern ing measures of organisa t ion ofthe pro ced ure and no t on tha t of the Co de of Co nd uc t . Tha t code is no t , and i snot intended to be, the appropriate text for deciding the quest ion raised here.

4 0 Since measures of organisat ion of the procedure have been requested by the appl icants in Primex, referred to above, i t is for the Court to decide to what extent i tcan grant that request on the basis of i ts Rules of Procedure. The quest ion whetherthe documents reques ted by the appl icant a re rea l ly re levant to the ac t ion brought

against the decis ion of 26 Jan ua ry 1996 (see pa rag rap h 12 above) can on ly bedecided in the context of that act ion.

II - 245


14/19


Infr ingem ent of Art ic le 190 of the Tre aty

41 Th e appl icant sub m its that the s tatem ent of reasons in the con tested decis ion doesnot meet the requirements of Art ic le 190 of the Treaty.

4 2 In the f i rs t place, the wording of the contested decis ion does not reveal whetherthe special features of the case in issue were analysed. Secondly, the Commissiondid not specify the reasons for which i t considers that the except ion for protect ionof the publ ic interest (court proceedings) is appl icable .

4 3 In particular, the Commission failed, in breach of i ts obligations, to state for eachdocument the ' impera t ive reasons ' for which d isc losure would jeopard ise pro tect ion of the publ ic interest .

4 4 Final ly, the appl icant submits that the Commission may not rely in this case onother except ions provided for in the Code of Conduct because the contes ted

decis ion contains an inadequate s ta tement of reasons in that regard.

45 T he Co m m issio n denies tha t i t has infr inged Art ic le 190 of the Treaty. T he s tatement of reasons clear ly summarises the essent ial point . As regards the appl icant 'sregret that the decis ion does not analyse the'special features ' of the case, the Com

mission considers that i t is not obl iged to prove, for each and every document , thatdisclosure could damage the publ ic interest .

II - 246


15/19


Findings of the Cour t

4 6 Decision 94/90 is a measure conferr ing on ci t izens a r ight of access to documentshe ld by the Commiss ion (WWF UK, c i ted above , paragraph 55) .

4 7 The fact that Article 162 of the Treaty was taken as the legal basis for that decisiondoes not affect that f inding. Even i f Decis ion 94/90 was adopted under the Commiss ion ' s powers of in te rna l organisa t ion , there i s no th ing to prevent ru les on theinternal organisat ion of the work of an inst i tut ion having legal effectsvis--visthird part ies (Netherlands v Council, c i ted above , paragraph 38) .

4 8 From i ts overal l scheme, i t is c lear that Decis ion 94/90 is intended to apply general ly to requests for access to documents . By vir tue of that decis ion, any personmay reques t access to any unp ubl i shed Co mm iss ion d ocu m ent , and is no t requi redto give a reason for the request (see the 1993 and 1994 communicat ions) .

4 9 In accordance wi th the Code of Conduct , however, the r igh t of access to documents is subject to cer tain except ions. Those except ions must be interpretedstr ic t ly, in order not to frustrate the appl icat ion of the general pr inciple of givingthe publ ic 'the wides t poss ib le access to documents he ld by the Commiss ion '(WWF UK, ci ted above, paragraph 56) .

50 A s was hel d at pa rag rap h 57 of th eWWF UK j u d g m e n t , t h e C o d e o f C o n d u c tcon tains tw o categories of except ion (see para grap h 7 abov e) .

II - 247


16/19


51 As regards the f i rs t category, to which the except ion rel ied upon in the present casebelongs, i t provides: 'The inst i tut ions wil l refuse access to any document wheredisclosure could undermine . . . the protect ion of the publ ic interest (publ ic securi ty,internat ional relat ions, monetary s tabi l i ty, court proceedings, inspect ions andinvest igat ions) ' .

5 2 T he use of the form 'co ul d ' m eans tha t before deciding o n a requ est for access todocuments the Commiss ion must cons ider, for each document reques ted , whetherin the l ight of the information in i ts possession disclosure is in fact l ikely to under

mine one of the interests protected under the f i rs t category of except ions. I f so, theCommiss ion i s bound to re fuse access to the document in ques t ion , tha t be ing acase in which the Code of Conduct provides tha t the ins t i tu t ions 'wi l l re fuse 'access.

5 3 Such a decis ion on the pa rt of the inst i tut io n m ust s ta te the reasons on wh ich i t isbased, in accordance with Art ic le 190 of the Treaty. I t has consis tent ly been heldtha t the reasoning requi red by tha t provis ion must show c lear ly and unequivoca l lythe r eason ing o f t he Communi ty au tho r i ty wh ich adop ted the con te s t ed measu reso as to enable the persons concerned to ascer tain the reasons for the measure inorder to protect their r ights , and the Court to exercise i ts power of review (CaseC-278/95 P Siemens v Commission [1997] ECR I -2507, paragraph 17;WWF UK,ci ted above, para gra ph 66) .

5 4 The statement of the reasons for a decis ion refusing access to documents musttherefore contain at least for each category of documents concerned the spec i f ic reasons for which the Commiss ion cons iders tha t d i sc losure of the documentsrequ ested is prec lud ed b y on e of th e except ions pro vid ed for in the f irst categ oryof except ions (WWF UK, pa rag rap hs 64 and 74) , in or de r to enable the pe rso n towhom the decis ion is addressed to sat isfy himself that the Commission did in factcons ider the documents in the manner descr ibed in paragraph 52 above and toassess whether the grounds for refusal are justified.

II - 248


17/19


55 I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , h o w e v e r , t h e c o n t e s t e d d e c i s i o n c o n t a i n s o n l y t h e c o n c l u s i o nthat the except ion for protect ion of the publ ic interest (court proceedings) is appl icable (see paragraph 18 above) . I t provides no explanat ion, even for categories ofdocuments , f rom which i t might be ascer ta ined whether a l l the documentsrequested, some of which are several years old, do indeed fal l within the scope ofthe except ion rel ied upon because they bear a relat ion to the decis ion whose annulment is sought in the Primex case, referred to above.

5 6 The statement of reasons in the contested decis ion is therefore inadequate .

5 7 I t fol lows that the contested decis ion must be annulled, without there being anyneed t o rule on the plea alleging infrin gem ent of th e right to a fair he arin g.

The second head of c la im, seek ing a dec la ra t ion tha t the Commiss ion i s no tent i t led to refuse access to the documents specif ied in the appl icant ' s le t ter of

23 February 1996 to the Secre ta ry-Genera l o f the Co m m iss ion

5 8 In support of this head of c laim, the appl icant submits that under the Code ofC on du ct i t is for the Secre ta ry-Genera l , whe n dea l ing wi th a conf i rm atory appl icat ion, to review the ini t ia l re ject ion of the request for access to the documents in

quest ion. He must therefore take a f inal decis ion as to the grounds on which heintends to base final rejection of the request.

II - 249


18/19


5 9 In the appl icant 's view, therefore, i t would deprive the procedure la id down inD eci sio n 94/90 of any practica l effect if, follow ing a ju dg m en t ann ulling thedec is ion , the Commiss ion were a l lowed in a subsequent adminis t ra t ive procedureto rely on different g ro un ds to justify reje ction of a req ue st for access to th e d oc uments . I f that were so, the appl icant would be obl iged to br ing the matter beforethe Co ur t aga in , a requ i rem ent w hich i t cons iders unacceptab le .

6 0 In order to avoid fur ther court proceedings, the appl icant therefore requests theCourt to f ind that the Commission has no grounds for refusing access to the variou s docu m en ts referred to in i ts le t ter of 23 Fe br ua ry 1996 (see parag raph 13above) , s ince i t has exhausted i ts r ight to refuse access to those documents by relying on o the r g rounds .

61 This head of c laim, which seeks the issue of direct ions to the Commission, is inadmiss ib le , s ince the Communi ty jud ica ture , when exerc is ing the jur i sd ic t ion toannul acts conferred on it by Article 173 of the Treaty, is not entit led to issuedi rec t ions to the Co m m un i ty ins t i tu t ions ( see , for example , Case 15/85ConsorzioCooperative d'Abruzzo v Commission [1987] ECR 1005, paragraph 18, and CaseT-346/94 France-Aviation v Commission [1995] ECR I I -2841 , paragraph 42) .

C o s t s

62 Under Art ic le 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful par ty is to beordered to pay the costs i f they have been appl ied for in the successful par ty 's

pleadings. Since the appl icant has appl ied for costs and the Commission has essent ia l ly been unsuccessfu l , the Commiss ion must be ordered to pay the cos ts .

II - 250


19/19


O n t h o s e g r o u n d s ,

T H E C O U R T O F F I R S T I N S T A N C E (T h ir d C h a m b e r , E x t e n d ed C o m p o s i t io n )

he reby :

1. Annuls the Commiss ion ' s dec is ion of 29 May 1996 re fus ing the appl ican taccess to cer ta in documents he ld by the Commiss ion ;

2. Dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as i t seeks the issue ofd i rec t ions to the Commiss ion ;

3. Orde r s t he Commiss ion to pay the cos t s .

Vesterdorf Brit L i n d h

P o t o c k i C o o k e

Del ivered in open cou r t in Lu xem bo urg o n 6 Fe bru ary 1998.

H . Jung

Registrar

B. Vesterdorf

President

II - 251

Interporc v Commision T12496

Documents

Transcript of Interporc v Commision T12496