Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/6640

11.11.2024

(Case C-631/24 P)

(C/2024/6640)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: M. Burón Pérez, G. Gattinara, and A. Spina, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Margrete Auken, Tilly Metz, Jutta Paulus, Emilie Mosnier, as heir of de Michèle Rivasi and Kimberly van Sparrentak

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal;

—dismiss the action as unfounded ; and

—order the applicants at first instance to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises four grounds of appeal.

Error in law in the interpretation of the duty to state reasons as regards the redactions concerning the definitions of ‘wilful misconduct’ and ‘best reasonable efforts’ (contested Judgment, paras 39-46). The Commission argues that in considering that the elements put forward in the contested decision were not enough motivated, to the point of preventing the Commission from further explaining the reasons of a partial access to documents, the General Court made an error of law in the interpretation of the duty to state reasons.

Errors in law in interpreting Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation 1049/2001 (1), breach of the obligation of motivation and distortion of the facts in considering unlawful the redactions of the provisions on indemnification (contested Judgment, paragraphs (contested Judgment, paragraphs 157-171). According to the Commission, the fact that the liability of the contractor and the presence of an indemnification clause in the contracts were known facts cannot eliminate the prejudice to the commercial interest of contractors of a wider disclosure of the text of the corresponding contractual provisions. The Commission also argues that several statements, such as the fact that redaction of certain clauses ‘does not deserve’ protection as commercial interest are not motivated and that the General Court provided a distorted reading of the relevant contextual elements of the contractual clauses on indemnification.

Errors in law in interpreting Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation 1049/2001 and the duty to state reasons as well as a distortion of the facts as regards the redactions concerning the provisions on resale and donation (contested Judgment, paragraphs 179-188). The Commission argues that the General Court wrongly concluded that the contested decision was insufficiently motivated and that it also distorted the facts in arriving at that conclusion.

Error in law in considering as established a breach of Articles 11(1) and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (contested Judgment, paragraphs 236-238 and 240). The Commission argues that the General Court could not conclude, as a consequence of its previous findings establishing a breach of Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation 1049/2001, that the Commission infringed Articles 11(1) and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

(1) OJ 2001, L 145, p. 43.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6640/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *