Official Journal of the European Union

Series C

—

C/2023/1285

11.12.2023

(Case C-540/23 P)

(C/2023/1285)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Ciubotaru, C. Ehrbar, and A. Spina, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Covington & Burling, Bart Van Vooren

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal;

—order the applicant to bear the costs arising from case T-201/21 and from the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the Appeal, the European Commission raises two grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law by rejecting the relevance of the comitology rules for the interpretation of the condition to ‘seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process’ of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1).

The first ground of appeal is divided into two limbs.

Firstly, the General Court erred in law by rejecting the relevance of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers and the Standards Rules of Procedure for Committees, for the application of the relevant exception to public access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Secondly, the General Court erred in law, by misinterpreting the Standard Rules of Procedure for Committees, and Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 with the view of assessing ‘if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision making process’.

Second ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law when assessing ‘if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process’ within the meaning of Article 4(3), first subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

The second ground of appeal is divided into two limbs.

Firstly, the General Court adopted an incomplete assessment of the arguments put forward by the Commission in the contested decision when assessing ‘if disclosure of the documents would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process’, thereby breaching its duty of reasoning.

Secondly, the General Court did not use the correct legal standards and omitted to assess the relevant factors as part of a body of consistent evidence.

—

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001, L 145, p. 43).

—

OJ 2011, L 55, p. 13.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1285/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—