EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/47

(Case T-25/18)

(2018/C 104/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Commission decision C(2017) 7604 final of 9 November 2017, partially refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the drafting of Delegated Regulations on scientific criteria for the assessment of endocrine disrupting substances;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission acted in breach of and wrongly applied Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1)

—The Commission acted in breach of and wrongly applied Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by applying it to information on a finished decision-making process.

—The Commission acted in breach of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 because it did not interpret or apply the ground for refusal in a sufficiently restrictive way and did not demonstrate that disclosure would seriously undermine the decision-making process.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by adopting the contested decision, acted in breach of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2) and Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001.

—The Commission has acted in breach of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 by not examining specifically and individually the documents referred to in the request for access and by not justifying for each specific document for which reason it should not be disclosed by not interpreting the ground for refusal of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a sufficiently restrictive way; furthermore, the Commission acted in breach of the abovementioned provisions because the Commission did not weigh the specific interest of protection of the decision-making process against the general interests of the disclosure of environmental information and by not stating sufficient reasons for the refusal.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly did not take into account that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested information.

—Because of the major change of policy during the decision-making process and the major change of the draft scientific criteria set during this process there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information requested.

*

(1) Regulation (EC) 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).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).