Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/705

(Case C-641/24 P)

(C/2025/705)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

By means of its appeal, Hungary claims that the Court of Justice should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 10 July 2024 in Case T-104/22;

—annul the decision of the Commission of 14 December 2021 reviewing the objections to disclosure submitted by Hungary in relation to confirmatory application GESTDEM 2021/2808, seeking to secure public access to documents (concerning the call for proposals EFOP) originating from Hungary;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal – the statement of reasons for the contested decision is defective

The appellant considers to be unacceptable the reasoning set out in paragraph 27 of the judgment, according to which the fact that the relevant decision granting access does not contain an exhaustive statement of reasons is not problematic, since that decision was addressed to the applicant and not to the Member State and did not refuse access, but rather granted such access, with the result that the Commission was not required to provide an exhaustive explanation of the reasons for its view that the exception was not applicable. The information letter accompanying the decision cannot cure that defect.

In addition, the Commission is under a fundamental obligation, stemming from the principle of the rule of law, to provide an adequate statement of reasons when it departs from the practice followed in connection with another, very similar, matter or when it modifies its assessment in a procedure, particularly in a procedure in which sincere cooperation is crucial.

Second ground of appeal – breach of the principle of sincere cooperation

In the present case, the Commission did not afford the Member State an opportunity to explain clearly and, as the case may be, to re-assess the reasons for relying on the objective exception laid down in Article 4(3). The Commission did not explain in detail why Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001/EC, specifically mentioned by the Member State, did not apply in the case in point, nor did it afford the Member State the opportunity to provide detailed clarification on its position and, as the case may be, to modify that position.

Under no circumstances may the view be taken that it is consistent with the principle of sincere cooperation for the Commission to treat additional documents identified when examining the confirmatory application as being included within the subject matter of that application and for it not to allow the Member State to object to access, despite the Commission knowing beforehand that the Hungarian authorities had previously asked that access to documents of a similar nature be refused.

Third ground of appeal – infringement of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001

The General Court misinterpreted Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, since its interpretation is not fully consistent with the settled case-law of the Court of Justice and results in a situation that seriously endangers open dialogue which promotes cooperation between the institutions and the authorities of the Member States.

Member States’ interests cannot be protected solely by means of the exceptions set out in Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, exceptions that must be interpreted narrowly. The Court of Justice accepted the abolition of the authorship rule, taking account of the fact that, according to its own interpretation, Article 4(1) to (3) is intended to protect Member States’ interests and that those exceptions ensure that those interests are adequately protected. However, it is not apparent from the General Court’s interpretation to what extent Article 4(3) serves to protect Member States’ interests.

By way of derogation from the system of individual responsibility for individual decisions established by the applicable provisions of EU law, the protection of the documents used in a given decision-making procedure under Regulation No 1049/2001 is not determined by whoever formally takes the decision in a given procedure, but rather by whoever actually decides on its content, without that decision necessarily having to be a formal decision. The Court of Justice must examine whether, in cases such as that at issue here, where the authorities of the Member States and the institutions of the European Union are both involved in the implementation of EU law and where the balance is so clearly tipped in favour of the institutions, it is actually possible to identify decisions which originate exclusively from the Member States.

The Court of Justice must examine whether the General Court is correct in its assessments relating to the statement of reasons for the Commission’s decision granting access, its scope, the analysis of the reasons put forward by the Member State, the scope of the analysis conducted by the Commission ‘on its own initiative’, and the cooperation obligation to which the Commission is subject.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/705/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *

Language of the case: Hungarian