Rechtsprechung
   EuG, 13.11.2015 - T-424/14, T-425/14   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,33172
EuG, 13.11.2015 - T-424/14, T-425/14 (https://dejure.org/2015,33172)
EuG, Entscheidung vom 13.11.2015 - T-424/14, T-425/14 (https://dejure.org/2015,33172)
EuG, Entscheidung vom 13. November 2015 - T-424/14, T-425/14 (https://dejure.org/2015,33172)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,33172) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (5)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof

    ClientEarth / Kommission

    Zugang zu Dokumenten - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 - Entwurf eines Berichts über die Folgenabschätzung, Bericht über die Folgenabschätzung und Stellungnahme des Ausschusses für Folgenabschätzung - Verweigerung des Zugangs - Ausnahme zum Schutz des ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof

    ClientEarth / Kommission

    Zugang zu Dokumenten - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 - Entwurf eines Berichts über die Folgenabschätzung, Bericht über die Folgenabschätzung und Stellungnahme des Ausschusses für Folgenabschätzung - Verweigerung des Zugangs - Ausnahme zum Schutz des ...

  • doev.de PDF

    Client Earth/Kommission - Zugang zu Dokumenten der Kommission

  • ra.de
  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof PDF (Pressemitteilung)

    Institutionelles Recht - Nach Ansicht des Gerichts der EU sind Folgenabschätzungen, die der Information der Kommission bei der Ausarbeitung ihrer Vorschläge für Gesetzgebungsakte dienen sollen, vor der Verbreitung dieser Vorschläge grundsätzlich nicht der Öffentlichkeit ...

  • lto.de (Kurzinformation)

    Zugang zu Folgenabschätzungen - Dokumente dürfen geheim bleiben

  • wolterskluwer-online.de (Kurzinformation)

    Zugang zu Dokumenten der Kommission

  • juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

    EU darf Folgenabschätzungen für Gesetzesvorhaben der Öffentlichkeit vorenthalten

Sonstiges (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof (Verfahrensmitteilung)

    ClientEarth / Kommission

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof (Verfahrensdokumentation)

    Zugang zu Dokumenten - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 - Entwurf eines Berichts über die Folgenabschätzung, Bericht über die Folgenabschätzung und Stellungnahme des Ausschusses für Folgenabschätzung - Verweigerung des Zugangs - Ausnahme zum Schutz des ...

Papierfundstellen

  • DÖV 2016, 135
 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (40)

  • EuGH, 01.07.2008 - C-39/05

    DER GERICHTSHOF GESTATTET GRUNDSÄTZLICH DEN ZUGANG ZU RECHTSGUTACHTEN DES RATES

    Auszug aus EuG, 13.11.2015 - T-424/14
    If an institution decides to refuse access to a document which it has been asked to disclose, it must explain, first, how access to that document could specifically and actually undermine the interest protected by an exception laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 and relied on by that institution and, second, in the situations referred to in Article 4(2) and (3) of that regulation, whether there is an overriding public interest that might nevertheless justify disclosure of the document concerned (judgments of 11 March 2009 in Borax Europe v Commission, T-121/05, EU:T:2009:64, paragraph 37, and 12 September 2013 in Besselink v Council, T-331/11, EU:T:2013:419, paragraph 96; see also, to that effect, judgment of 1 July 2008 in Sweden and Turco v Council, C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P, ECR, EU:C:2008:374, paragraphs 48 and 49).

    As is stated in recital 2 in the preamble to that regulation, the right of public access to documents of the institutions is related to the democratic nature of those institutions (judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 34; judgments of 21 September 2010 in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P, ECR, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 68; 21 July 2011 in Sweden v MyTravel and Commission, C-506/08 P, ECR, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 72; 17 October 2013 in Council v Access Info Europe, C-280/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 27; and 27 February 2014 in Commission v EnBW, C-365/12 P, ECR, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 61).

    58 As such exceptions derogate from the principle of the widest possible public access to documents, they must be interpreted and applied strictly (see judgments in Sison v Council, cited in paragraph 30 above, EU:C:2007:75, paragraph 63 and the caselaw cited; Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 36 and the caselaw cited; and Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 30 and the caselaw cited).

    63 However, notwithstanding the caselaw cited in particular in paragraph 59 above, the Court of Justice has acknowledged that it is possible for the institution concerned to base its decisions on general presumptions which apply to certain categories of documents, as considerations of a generally similar nature are likely to apply to requests for disclosure relating to documents of the same nature (judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 50; see also judgments in Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 72 and the caselaw cited, and Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 65 and the caselaw cited).

    66 First, it is apparent from the caselaw cited in paragraphs 64 and 65 above that, in order for a general presumption to be validly relied upon against a person requesting access to documents on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001, it is necessary that the documents requested belong to the same category of documents or be documents of the same nature (see, to that effect, judgments in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 50; Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 72 and the caselaw cited; and Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 65 and the caselaw cited).

    That citizens have the opportunity to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights (judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 46, and judgment of 22 March 2011 in Access Info Europe v Council, T-233/09, ECR, EU:T:2011:105, paragraph 57).

    104 Next, to the extent that the applicant makes reference to Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, it should be observed that it is true that that provision acknowledges the specific nature of the legislative process by providing that "legislative documents, that is to say, documents drawn up or received in the course of procedures for the adoption of acts which are legally binding in or for the Member States, should ... be made directly accessible' (judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 47).

    Indeed, it was on the subject of a decision refusing to grant access to an opinion of the Council's legal service concerning a proposal for a Council directive that the Court of Justice, having recalled the caselaw cited in paragraph 101 above and the specific nature of the legislative process in the light of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, declared for the first time that it was possible for an institution to base such a decision on general presumptions (judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraphs 46, 47 and 50).

    134 In that respect, it is for the institution concerned to weigh the particular interest to be protected by nondisclosure of the document concerned against, inter alia, the public interest in the document being made accessible, having regard to the advantages of increased openness, as described in recital 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that it enables citizens to participate more closely in the decisionmaking process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system (judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 45; judgment in Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 32; and judgment of 3 July 2014 in Council v in 't Veld, C-350/12 P, ECR, EU:C:2014:2039, paragraph 53).

    135 The overriding public interest capable of justifying the disclosure of a document does not necessarily have to be distinct from the principles which underlie Regulation No 1049/2001 (judgments in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraphs 74 and 75, and LPN and Finland v Commission, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 92).

  • EuGH, 17.10.2013 - C-280/11

    Rat / Access Info Europe - Rechtsmittel - Recht auf Zugang zu Dokumenten der

    Auszug aus EuG, 13.11.2015 - T-424/14
    As is stated in recital 2 in the preamble to that regulation, the right of public access to documents of the institutions is related to the democratic nature of those institutions (judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 34; judgments of 21 September 2010 in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P, ECR, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 68; 21 July 2011 in Sweden v MyTravel and Commission, C-506/08 P, ECR, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 72; 17 October 2013 in Council v Access Info Europe, C-280/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 27; and 27 February 2014 in Commission v EnBW, C-365/12 P, ECR, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 61).

    56 To that end, Regulation No 1049/2001 is designed, as is apparent from recital 4 thereof and from Article 1 thereof, to give the fullest possible effect to the right of public access to documents of the institutions (judgment in Sison v Council, cited in paragraph 30 above, EU:C:2007:75, paragraph 61; judgment of 18 December 2007 in Sweden v Commission, C-64/05 P, ECR, EU:C:2007:802, paragraph 53; judgment in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 69; and judgment in Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 28).

    More specifically, and in accordance with recital 11 thereof, Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides for a number of exceptions enabling the institutions to refuse access to a document where its disclosure would undermine one of the interests protected by that provision (judgments in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraphs 70 and 71; Sweden v MyTravel and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 74; and Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 29).

    58 As such exceptions derogate from the principle of the widest possible public access to documents, they must be interpreted and applied strictly (see judgments in Sison v Council, cited in paragraph 30 above, EU:C:2007:75, paragraph 63 and the caselaw cited; Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 36 and the caselaw cited; and Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 30 and the caselaw cited).

    Moreover, the risk of that interest being undermined must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical (see judgments in Sweden v MyTravel and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 76 and the caselaw cited, and Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 31).

    63 However, notwithstanding the caselaw cited in particular in paragraph 59 above, the Court of Justice has acknowledged that it is possible for the institution concerned to base its decisions on general presumptions which apply to certain categories of documents, as considerations of a generally similar nature are likely to apply to requests for disclosure relating to documents of the same nature (judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 50; see also judgments in Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 72 and the caselaw cited, and Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 65 and the caselaw cited).

    66 First, it is apparent from the caselaw cited in paragraphs 64 and 65 above that, in order for a general presumption to be validly relied upon against a person requesting access to documents on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001, it is necessary that the documents requested belong to the same category of documents or be documents of the same nature (see, to that effect, judgments in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 50; Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 72 and the caselaw cited; and Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 65 and the caselaw cited).

    The application of specific rules provided for by a legal measure relating to a procedure conducted before an EU institution for the purposes of which the documents requested were produced is one of the criteria for recognising a general presumption (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 June 2015 in McCullough v Cedefop, T-496/13, EU:T:2015:374, paragraph 91 and the caselaw cited; see also, to that effect, Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in Council v Access Info Europe, C-280/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:325, paragraph 75).

    134 In that respect, it is for the institution concerned to weigh the particular interest to be protected by nondisclosure of the document concerned against, inter alia, the public interest in the document being made accessible, having regard to the advantages of increased openness, as described in recital 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that it enables citizens to participate more closely in the decisionmaking process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system (judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 45; judgment in Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 32; and judgment of 3 July 2014 in Council v in 't Veld, C-350/12 P, ECR, EU:C:2014:2039, paragraph 53).

  • EuGH, 14.11.2013 - C-514/11

    LPN / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Zugang zu Dokumenten der Organe - Verordnung

    Auszug aus EuG, 13.11.2015 - T-424/14
    64 Accordingly, the Court of Justice has acknowledged the existence of general presumptions that access to documents is to be refused in five particular situations, namely in cases concerning: the documents in the administrative file relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid (judgment of 29 June 2010 in Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, C-139/07 P, ECR, EU:C:2010:376, paragraph 61); the documents exchanged between the Commission and the notifying parties or third parties in the context of merger control proceedings (judgments of 28 June 2012 in Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob, C-404/10 P, ECR, EU:C:2012:393, paragraph 123, and Commission v Agrofert Holding, C-477/10 P, ECR, EU:C:2012:394, paragraph 64); the pleadings lodged by an institution in court proceedings (judgment in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 94); the documents relating to an infringement procedure during the prelitigation stage of that procedure (judgment of 14 November 2013 in LPN and Finland v Commission, C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 65), and the documents in a file relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (judgment in Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 93).

    Accordingly, a general presumption may be recognised on the basis that access to the documents involved in certain procedures is incompatible with the proper conduct of such procedures and the risk that those procedures could be undermined, on the understanding that general presumptions ensure that the integrity of the conduct of the procedure can be preserved by limiting intervention by third parties (see, to that effect, Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in LPN and Finland v Commission, C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:528, paragraphs 66, 68, 74 and 76, and judgment in Spirlea v Commission, cited in paragraph 65 above, currently under appeal, EU:T:2014:816, paragraphs 57 and 58).

    75 However, it is apparent from the caselaw that it is both a qualitative and quantitative criterion, namely, the fact that the documents requested relate to one and the same procedure -- in the present cases, two procedures for developing impact assessments -- that determines whether a general presumption of refusal of access may apply (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment in LPN and Finland v Commission, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 45 and the caselaw cited), and not, as the applicant in essence maintains, a purely quantitative criterion, namely, the lesser or greater number of documents sought by its requests for access (see, to that effect, judgment in Spirlea v Commission, cited in paragraph 65 above, currently under appeal, EU:T:2014:816, paragraph 75).

    108 It is true that Article 6 of Regulation No 1367/2006, which adds specific rules concerning requests for access to environmental information to Regulation No 1049/2001 (judgment in LPN and Finland v Commission, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 79), reaffirms and reinforces the obligation to interpret the exceptions laid down in Article 4(1), the second indent of Article 4(2), and Article 4(3) and (5) of the latter regulation strictly.

    135 The overriding public interest capable of justifying the disclosure of a document does not necessarily have to be distinct from the principles which underlie Regulation No 1049/2001 (judgments in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraphs 74 and 75, and LPN and Finland v Commission, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 92).

    136 Nevertheless, a statement of considerations of a purely general nature is not sufficient for the purposes of establishing that an overriding public interest prevails over the reasons justifying the refusal to disclose the documents in question (see, to that effect, judgments in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 158; LPN and Finland v Commission, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 93; and Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 105).

    137 Furthermore, the requirement that an applicant for access refer to specific circumstances to show that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents concerned is in accordance with the caselaw of the Court of Justice (judgment in LPN and Finland v Commission, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 94; see also, to that effect, judgments in Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2010:376, paragraph 62; Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 103; Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2012:393, paragraph 126; and Commission v Agrofert Holding, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2012:394, paragraph 68).

    150 In the second place, regarding the argument that the public has an interest in understanding and following the development of impact assessments, which form the basis of legislative proposals, in order to be in a position to exercise its right to participate in democratic processes by generating public debate, it should be borne in mind that it has already been held that the interest of an applicant in supplementing the information held by the institution concerned and in taking an active part in an ongoing procedure did not constitute an overriding public interest, even though that applicant was acting, as a nongovernmental organisation, in accordance with the objects stated in its governing documents, which consisted in the protection of the environment (see, to that effect, judgment in LPN and Finland v Commission, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 95; see also, to that effect and by analogy, order in Ecologistas en Acción v Commission, cited in paragraph 121 above, EU:T:2014:182, paragraph 75).

    That second sentence mentions the "other exceptions set out in Article 4 of Regulation ... No 1049/2001' and therefore applies to the exceptions set out in Article 4(1), the second indent of Article 4(2) and Article 4(3) and (5) of that regulation (judgment in LPN and Finland v Commission, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2013:738, paragraphs 79 to 81 and 83).

  • EuGH, 27.02.2014 - C-365/12

    Kommission / Enbw Energie Baden-Württemberg - Rechtsmittel - Verordnung (EG) Nr.

    Auszug aus EuG, 13.11.2015 - T-424/14
    As is stated in recital 2 in the preamble to that regulation, the right of public access to documents of the institutions is related to the democratic nature of those institutions (judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 34; judgments of 21 September 2010 in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P, ECR, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 68; 21 July 2011 in Sweden v MyTravel and Commission, C-506/08 P, ECR, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 72; 17 October 2013 in Council v Access Info Europe, C-280/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 27; and 27 February 2014 in Commission v EnBW, C-365/12 P, ECR, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 61).

    The mere fact that a document concerns an interest protected by an exception is not of itself sufficient to justify application of that exception (judgments of 13 April 2005 in Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Commission, T-2/03, ECR, EU:T:2005:125, paragraph 69, and 7 June 2011 in Toland v Parliament, T-471/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:252, paragraph 29; see also, to that effect, judgment in Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 64).

    63 However, notwithstanding the caselaw cited in particular in paragraph 59 above, the Court of Justice has acknowledged that it is possible for the institution concerned to base its decisions on general presumptions which apply to certain categories of documents, as considerations of a generally similar nature are likely to apply to requests for disclosure relating to documents of the same nature (judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 50; see also judgments in Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 72 and the caselaw cited, and Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 65 and the caselaw cited).

    64 Accordingly, the Court of Justice has acknowledged the existence of general presumptions that access to documents is to be refused in five particular situations, namely in cases concerning: the documents in the administrative file relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid (judgment of 29 June 2010 in Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, C-139/07 P, ECR, EU:C:2010:376, paragraph 61); the documents exchanged between the Commission and the notifying parties or third parties in the context of merger control proceedings (judgments of 28 June 2012 in Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob, C-404/10 P, ECR, EU:C:2012:393, paragraph 123, and Commission v Agrofert Holding, C-477/10 P, ECR, EU:C:2012:394, paragraph 64); the pleadings lodged by an institution in court proceedings (judgment in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 94); the documents relating to an infringement procedure during the prelitigation stage of that procedure (judgment of 14 November 2013 in LPN and Finland v Commission, C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 65), and the documents in a file relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (judgment in Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 93).

    66 First, it is apparent from the caselaw cited in paragraphs 64 and 65 above that, in order for a general presumption to be validly relied upon against a person requesting access to documents on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001, it is necessary that the documents requested belong to the same category of documents or be documents of the same nature (see, to that effect, judgments in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 50; Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 72 and the caselaw cited; and Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 65 and the caselaw cited).

    74 It is true that the Court of Justice has observed that the cases giving rise to the judgments cited in paragraph 64 above were all characterised by the fact that the request for access in question covered not just one document but a set of documents and stated that, in that type of situation, the recognition of a general presumption that access was not to be granted enabled the institution concerned to deal with a global application and to reply thereto accordingly (see judgment in Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraphs 67 to 69 and the caselaw cited).

    114 According to the caselaw, the recognition of a general presumption does not rule out the possibility of demonstrating that a specific document in respect of which disclosure has been requested is not covered by that presumption, or that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of that document, pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (see, by analogy, judgment in Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 100 and the caselaw cited).

    136 Nevertheless, a statement of considerations of a purely general nature is not sufficient for the purposes of establishing that an overriding public interest prevails over the reasons justifying the refusal to disclose the documents in question (see, to that effect, judgments in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 158; LPN and Finland v Commission, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 93; and Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 105).

  • EuGH, 21.09.2010 - C-514/07

    Schweden / API und Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Recht auf Zugang zu Dokumenten der

    Auszug aus EuG, 13.11.2015 - T-424/14
    As is stated in recital 2 in the preamble to that regulation, the right of public access to documents of the institutions is related to the democratic nature of those institutions (judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 34; judgments of 21 September 2010 in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P, ECR, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 68; 21 July 2011 in Sweden v MyTravel and Commission, C-506/08 P, ECR, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 72; 17 October 2013 in Council v Access Info Europe, C-280/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 27; and 27 February 2014 in Commission v EnBW, C-365/12 P, ECR, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 61).

    56 To that end, Regulation No 1049/2001 is designed, as is apparent from recital 4 thereof and from Article 1 thereof, to give the fullest possible effect to the right of public access to documents of the institutions (judgment in Sison v Council, cited in paragraph 30 above, EU:C:2007:75, paragraph 61; judgment of 18 December 2007 in Sweden v Commission, C-64/05 P, ECR, EU:C:2007:802, paragraph 53; judgment in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 69; and judgment in Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 28).

    More specifically, and in accordance with recital 11 thereof, Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides for a number of exceptions enabling the institutions to refuse access to a document where its disclosure would undermine one of the interests protected by that provision (judgments in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraphs 70 and 71; Sweden v MyTravel and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 74; and Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 29).

    64 Accordingly, the Court of Justice has acknowledged the existence of general presumptions that access to documents is to be refused in five particular situations, namely in cases concerning: the documents in the administrative file relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid (judgment of 29 June 2010 in Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, C-139/07 P, ECR, EU:C:2010:376, paragraph 61); the documents exchanged between the Commission and the notifying parties or third parties in the context of merger control proceedings (judgments of 28 June 2012 in Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob, C-404/10 P, ECR, EU:C:2012:393, paragraph 123, and Commission v Agrofert Holding, C-477/10 P, ECR, EU:C:2012:394, paragraph 64); the pleadings lodged by an institution in court proceedings (judgment in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 94); the documents relating to an infringement procedure during the prelitigation stage of that procedure (judgment of 14 November 2013 in LPN and Finland v Commission, C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 65), and the documents in a file relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (judgment in Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 93).

    136 Nevertheless, a statement of considerations of a purely general nature is not sufficient for the purposes of establishing that an overriding public interest prevails over the reasons justifying the refusal to disclose the documents in question (see, to that effect, judgments in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 158; LPN and Finland v Commission, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 93; and Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 105).

    137 Furthermore, the requirement that an applicant for access refer to specific circumstances to show that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents concerned is in accordance with the caselaw of the Court of Justice (judgment in LPN and Finland v Commission, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 94; see also, to that effect, judgments in Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2010:376, paragraph 62; Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 103; Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2012:393, paragraph 126; and Commission v Agrofert Holding, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2012:394, paragraph 68).

    140 In the first place, regarding the argument that, especially in the light of the areas with which the two impact assessments in question are connected, the transparency necessary to understand the legislative process constitutes in itself a public interest which must be protected and which the Commission neglected to take into account, it must be held that, having regard to the caselaw cited in paragraph 136 above, such a general consideration cannot provide an appropriate basis for establishing that, in the present cases, the principle of transparency was of especially pressing concern and capable, therefore, of prevailing over the reasons justifying the refusals to grant access to the documents requested (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraphs 157 and 158).

  • EuGH, 01.02.2007 - C-266/05

    Sison / Rat - Rechtsmittel - Zugang zu den Dokumenten der Organe - Verordnung

    Auszug aus EuG, 13.11.2015 - T-424/14
    It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons for a measure meets the requirements of Article 296 TFEU must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (judgments of 6 March 2003 in Interporc v Commission, C-41/00 P, ECR, EU:C:2003:125, paragraph 55; 1 February 2007 in Sison v Council, C-266/05 P, ECR, EU:C:2007:75, paragraph 80; 10 July 2008 in Bertelsmann and Sony Corporation of America v Impala, C-413/06 P, ECR, EU:C:2008:392, paragraph 166; and 24 May 2011 in NLG v Commission, T-109/05 and T-444/05, ECR, EU:T:2011:235, paragraph 81).

    56 To that end, Regulation No 1049/2001 is designed, as is apparent from recital 4 thereof and from Article 1 thereof, to give the fullest possible effect to the right of public access to documents of the institutions (judgment in Sison v Council, cited in paragraph 30 above, EU:C:2007:75, paragraph 61; judgment of 18 December 2007 in Sweden v Commission, C-64/05 P, ECR, EU:C:2007:802, paragraph 53; judgment in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 69; and judgment in Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 28).

    57 That right is none the less subject to certain limitations based on grounds of public or private interest (judgment in Sison v Council, cited in paragraph 30 above, EU:C:2007:75, paragraph 62).

    58 As such exceptions derogate from the principle of the widest possible public access to documents, they must be interpreted and applied strictly (see judgments in Sison v Council, cited in paragraph 30 above, EU:C:2007:75, paragraph 63 and the caselaw cited; Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 36 and the caselaw cited; and Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 30 and the caselaw cited).

    105 However, even on the assumption that the documents requested fall to be described as "legislative documents' within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, it should be stated that that provision applies only "subject to Articles 4 and 9' of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgment in Sison v Council, cited in paragraph 30 above, EU:C:2007:75, paragraph 41).

    Further, it is apparent from the caselaw that the right of access to documents does not depend on the nature of the particular interest which the applicant for access may or may not have in obtaining the information requested (judgment in LPN v Commission, cited in paragraph 108 above, EU:T:2011:448, paragraph 137, and order of 27 March 2014 in Ecologistas en Acción v Commission, T-603/11, EU:T:2014:182, paragraph 74; see also, to that effect and by analogy, judgment in Sison v Council, cited in paragraph 30 above, EU:C:2007:75, paragraphs 43 and 44).

  • EuG, 07.06.2011 - T-471/08

    Toland / Parlament

    Auszug aus EuG, 13.11.2015 - T-424/14
    The mere fact that a document concerns an interest protected by an exception is not of itself sufficient to justify application of that exception (judgments of 13 April 2005 in Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Commission, T-2/03, ECR, EU:T:2005:125, paragraph 69, and 7 June 2011 in Toland v Parliament, T-471/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:252, paragraph 29; see also, to that effect, judgment in Commission v EnBW, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 64).

    60 Therefore, the application of the exception laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 requires it to be established that access to the document in question, drawn up by the institution for its internal use, was likely specifically and actually to undermine the protection of the institution's decisionmaking process, and that the risk of that interest being undermined was reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical (judgment in Toland v Parliament, cited in paragraph 59 above, EU:T:2011:252, paragraph 70).

    The assessment of seriousness depends on all the circumstances of the case including, inter alia, the negative effects on the decisionmaking process relied on by the institution as regards disclosure of the documents in question (judgment of 18 December 2008 in Muñiz v Commission, T-144/05, EU:T:2008:596, paragraph 75; judgment in Toland v Parliament, cited in paragraph 59 above, EU:T:2011:252, paragraph 71; and judgment of 9 September 2014 in MasterCard and Others v Commission, T-516/11, EU:T:2014:759, paragraph 62).

    According to the caselaw, it is sufficient in that regard if the contested decision contains tangible elements from which it can be inferred that the risk that the decisionmaking process would be undermined was, on the date on which that decision was adopted, reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical, showing, in particular, the existence, on that date, of objective reasons on the basis of which it could be reasonably foreseen that the decisionmaking process would be undermined if the documents requested by the applicant were disclosed (judgment of 11 December 2014 in Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v Commission, T-476/12, currently under appeal, EU:T:2014:1059, paragraph 71; see also, to that effect, judgment in Toland v Parliament, cited in paragraph 59 above, EU:T:2011:252, paragraphs 78 and 79).

  • EuG, 09.09.2011 - T-29/08

    LPN / Kommission - Zugang zu Dokumenten - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 -

    Auszug aus EuG, 13.11.2015 - T-424/14
    The second sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 states that those exceptions must 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 (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 September 2011 in LPN v Commission, T-29/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:448, paragraph 107).

    109 However, first, there is no need to determine whether, in the present cases, the documents requested contain information relating to emissions into the environment, since it must be observed that the fact that the second sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 adds further detail relating to the interpretation in a restrictive way of the exceptions to the right of access to documents laid down by Regulation No 1049/2001, the consequence of which may be that greater access is granted to environmental information than to other information contained in documents held by the institutions, has no decisive bearing on the question whether the institution concerned is or is not required to carry out a specific and individual examination of the documents or information requested (see, to that effect, judgment in LPN v Commission, cited in paragraph 108 above, EU:T:2011:448, paragraphs 107 and 117).

    Further, it is apparent from the caselaw that the right of access to documents does not depend on the nature of the particular interest which the applicant for access may or may not have in obtaining the information requested (judgment in LPN v Commission, cited in paragraph 108 above, EU:T:2011:448, paragraph 137, and order of 27 March 2014 in Ecologistas en Acción v Commission, T-603/11, EU:T:2014:182, paragraph 74; see also, to that effect and by analogy, judgment in Sison v Council, cited in paragraph 30 above, EU:C:2007:75, paragraphs 43 and 44).

  • EuGH, 21.07.2011 - C-506/08

    Das Urteil des Gerichts und die Entscheidungen der Kommission, mit denen der

    Auszug aus EuG, 13.11.2015 - T-424/14
    As is stated in recital 2 in the preamble to that regulation, the right of public access to documents of the institutions is related to the democratic nature of those institutions (judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council, cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 34; judgments of 21 September 2010 in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P, ECR, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 68; 21 July 2011 in Sweden v MyTravel and Commission, C-506/08 P, ECR, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 72; 17 October 2013 in Council v Access Info Europe, C-280/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 27; and 27 February 2014 in Commission v EnBW, C-365/12 P, ECR, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 61).

    More specifically, and in accordance with recital 11 thereof, Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides for a number of exceptions enabling the institutions to refuse access to a document where its disclosure would undermine one of the interests protected by that provision (judgments in Sweden and Others v API and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2010:541, paragraphs 70 and 71; Sweden v MyTravel and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 74; and Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 29).

    Moreover, the risk of that interest being undermined must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical (see judgments in Sweden v MyTravel and Commission, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 76 and the caselaw cited, and Council v Access Info Europe, cited in paragraph 55 above, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 31).

  • EuG, 25.09.2014 - T-306/12

    Spirlea / Kommission - Zugang zu Dokumenten - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 -

    Auszug aus EuG, 13.11.2015 - T-424/14
    65 The General Court has acknowledged the existence of general presumptions in three additional situations, namely in cases concerning: the bids submitted by tenderers in a public procurement procedure in the event that a request for access is made by another tenderer (judgment of 29 January 2013 in Cosepuri v EFSA, T-339/10 and T-532/10, ECR, EU:T:2013:38, paragraph 101); the documents relating to an "EU Pilot' procedure (judgment of 25 September 2014 in Spirlea v Commission, T-306/12, ECR, currently under appeal, EU:T:2014:816, paragraph 63), and the documents sent by the national competition authorities to the Commission pursuant to Article 11(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) (judgment of 12 May 2015 in Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission, T-623/13, ECR, EU:T:2015:268, paragraph 64).

    Accordingly, a general presumption may be recognised on the basis that access to the documents involved in certain procedures is incompatible with the proper conduct of such procedures and the risk that those procedures could be undermined, on the understanding that general presumptions ensure that the integrity of the conduct of the procedure can be preserved by limiting intervention by third parties (see, to that effect, Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in LPN and Finland v Commission, C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:528, paragraphs 66, 68, 74 and 76, and judgment in Spirlea v Commission, cited in paragraph 65 above, currently under appeal, EU:T:2014:816, paragraphs 57 and 58).

    75 However, it is apparent from the caselaw that it is both a qualitative and quantitative criterion, namely, the fact that the documents requested relate to one and the same procedure -- in the present cases, two procedures for developing impact assessments -- that determines whether a general presumption of refusal of access may apply (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment in LPN and Finland v Commission, cited in paragraph 64 above, EU:C:2013:738, paragraph 45 and the caselaw cited), and not, as the applicant in essence maintains, a purely quantitative criterion, namely, the lesser or greater number of documents sought by its requests for access (see, to that effect, judgment in Spirlea v Commission, cited in paragraph 65 above, currently under appeal, EU:T:2014:816, paragraph 75).

  • EuG, 27.03.2014 - T-603/11

    Ecologistas en Acción / Kommission

  • EuGH, 28.06.2012 - C-404/10

    Kommission / Éditions Odile Jacob - Rechtsmittel - Zugang zu den Dokumenten der

  • EuGH, 28.06.2012 - C-477/10

    Kommission / Agrofert Holding - Rechtsmittel - Zugang zu den Dokumenten der

  • EuGH, 29.06.2010 - C-139/07

    Die Verweigerung des Zugangs zu den Dokumenten betreffend ein Verfahren zur

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.12.2014 - C-409/13

    Rat / Kommission

  • EuG, 12.09.2013 - T-331/11

    Das Gericht erklärt den Beschluss des Rates, den Zugang zu einem den Beitritt der

  • EuGH, 06.03.2003 - C-41/00

    Interporc / Kommission

  • EuG, 24.05.2011 - T-109/05

    NLG / Kommission - Zugang zu Dokumenten - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 -

  • EuGH, 07.02.1979 - 15/76

    Frankreich / Kommission

  • EuG, 13.04.2005 - T-2/03

    DAS GERICHT ERKLÄRT EINE ENTSCHEIDUNG DER KOMMISSION FÜR NICHTIG, MIT DER EIN

  • EuG, 25.06.1998 - T-371/94

    British Airways u.a. / Kommission

  • EuG, 12.05.2015 - T-623/13

    Das Gericht der EU stellt fest, dass der Schriftwechsel zwischen der Kommission

  • EuGH, 25.10.2007 - C-167/06

    Komninou u.a. / Kommission

  • EuGH, 10.05.1960 - 3/58

    Barbara Erzbergbau AG und andere gegen Hohe Behörde der Europäischen Gemeinschaft

  • EuG, 11.06.2015 - T-496/13

    McCullough / Cedefop

  • EuG, 14.01.2004 - T-109/01

    Fleuren Compost / Kommission - Nichtigkeitsklage - Staatliche Beihilfen -

  • EuGH, 15.11.2012 - C-539/10

    und Sicherheitspolitik - Der Gerichtshof hebt das Urteil des Gerichts auf, mit

  • EuGH, 03.07.2014 - C-350/12

    'Rat / In ''t Veld' - Rechtsmittel - Zugang zu Dokumenten der Organe - Verordnung

  • EuG, 18.12.2008 - T-144/05

    Muñiz / Kommission

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.05.2013 - C-280/11

    Rat / Access Info Europe - Rechtsmittel - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 - Recht

  • EuG, 11.12.2014 - T-476/12

    Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland / Kommission - Zugang zu Dokumenten - Verordnung

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 05.09.2013 - C-514/11

    LPN / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 - Zugang zu

  • EuG, 22.03.2011 - T-233/09

    Access Info Europe / Rat - Zugang zu Dokumenten - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 -

  • EuG, 26.04.2005 - T-110/03

    Sison / Rat - Zugang zu Dokumenten - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 - Dokumente zu

  • EuG, 09.09.2014 - T-516/11

    MasterCard u.a. / Kommission

  • EuGH, 18.12.2007 - C-64/05

    Schweden / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 - Zugang der

  • EuGH, 14.04.2015 - C-409/13

    Rat / Kommission - Nichtigkeitsklage - Makrofinanzhilfen an Drittländer -

  • EuG, 29.01.2013 - T-339/10

    Cosepuri / EFSA - Öffentliche Dienstleistungsaufträge - Ausschreibungsverfahren -

  • EuGH, 10.07.2008 - C-413/06

    DER GERICHTSHOF HEBT DAS URTEIL DES GERICHTS ERSTER INSTANZ ZUM

  • EuG, 11.03.2009 - T-121/05

    Borax Europe / Kommission

  • EuGH, 04.09.2018 - C-57/16

    ClientEarth / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Zugang zu Dokumenten der Organe der

    Mit ihrem Rechtsmittel begehrt ClientEarth die Aufhebung des Urteils des Gerichts der Europäischen Union vom 13. November 2015, ClientEarth/Kommission (T-424/14 und T-425/14, im Folgenden: angefochtenes Urteil, EU:T:2015:848), mit dem das Gericht ihre Klage auf Nichtigerklärung des Beschlusses der Europäischen Kommission vom 1. April 2014, mit dem der Zugang zu einem Folgenabschätzungsbericht betreffend einen Entwurf für ein verbindliches Instrument zur Festlegung des strategischen Rahmens von risikobasierten Inspektions- und Überwachungsverfahren im Bereich des Umweltrechts der Europäischen Union sowie zu einer Stellungnahme des Ausschusses für Folgenabschätzung verweigert wird, und des Beschlusses der Kommission vom 3. April 2014, mit dem der Zugang zu einem Entwurf eines Folgenabschätzungsberichts betreffend den Zugang zu Gerichten in Umweltangelegenheiten auf mitgliedstaatlicher Ebene im Bereich der Umweltpolitik der Union und zu einer Stellungnahme des Ausschusses für Folgenabschätzung verweigert wird (im Folgenden zusammen: streitige Beschlüsse), abgewiesen hat.

    Mit Klageschriften, die am 11. Juni 2014 bei der Kanzlei des Gerichts eingingen, erhob ClientEarth zwei Klagen auf Nichtigerklärung der in Rn. 1 des vorliegenden Urteils angeführten Beschlüsse der Kommission vom 1. April 2014 (Rechtssache T-425/14) und vom 3. April 2014 (Rechtssache T-424/14).

    Das Urteil des Gerichts der Europäischen Union vom 13. November 2015, ClientEarth/Kommission (T-424/14 und T-425/14, EU:T:2015:848), wird aufgehoben.

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 28.11.2017 - C-57/16

    ClientEarth / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Zugang zu Dokumenten der Organe -

    Die Rechtsmittelführerin erhob gegen diese beiden Beschlüsse Klage, die das Gericht mit Urteil vom 13. November 2015, ClientEarth/Kommission (T-424/14 und T-425/14, im Folgenden: angefochtenes Urteil, EU:T:2015:848), abwies.

    Nach dieser Verweigerung der Verbreitung erhob ClientEarth am 11. Juni 2014 zwei Klagen auf Nichtigerklärung des Beschlusses vom 1. April 2014 (Rechtssache T-425/14) und des Beschlusses vom 3. April 2014 (Rechtssache T-424/14).

    Das Urteil des Gerichts der Europäischen Union vom 13. November 2015, ClientEarth/Kommission (T-424/14 und T-425/14, EU:T:2015:848), wird aufgehoben.

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht