Luxembourg, 14/09/2007 (Agence Europe) - In a ruling published on 12 September, the European Court of First Instance partly backed the appeal by the International Press Association (IPA) for access to European Commission documents connected with several cases before the European Court of Justice. The ruling recognises that in some cases, access to Commission documents may be denied.
IPA made use of Regulation 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and Council, which foresees that any EU citizen and any 'legal person' in the form of an individual, or a company residing in an EU member state, has the right to access European institution documents. The Commission replied by referring to the exceptions outlined in the same regulation, particularly when divulgence would damage legal proceedings or an investigation being carried out. These exceptions only apply in the absence of a higher public interest which would justify divulgence.
In 2003, IPA was refused access to documents submitted by the European Commission to the European Court of First Instance or Court of Justice concerning several cases, and thus IPA appealed against this decision. The Court of First Instance distinguished between the cases in question in order to assess them in terms of right of access, possible exceptions and possible public interest. For cases T-209/01 Honeywell, T-210/01 General Electric, and C-203/03 Commission/Austria, the Commission explained that that the requested access would be damaging to the legal proceedings under way, particularly the fact that the Commission was a party and that the request to access the document was received before the public hearing. The Commission also stressed its right to simply refuse without having to explain with details for each document in question. The Court of Justice agreed with this view, ruling that the public interest did not justify access being granted before the hearing, and that the principle of transparency after the hearing was sufficiently guaranteed by publication of the appeals in the Official Journal.
In terms of case T-342/99 Airtours, the Commission said that even though the case was closed, it had been followed by a second case claiming interest and damages (T-212/03) which had not yet been heard, and could be influenced by the publication of arguments from the first case. The Court of Justice ruled against the Commission here, explaining that the arguments that the Commission viewed as sensitive were already in the public domain on the date the Commission made its decision. In the Open Skies cases (C-224/01, C-280/00 and others), the Commission explained that although the cases were closed, divulgence would affect the negotiations still under way with the member states in question, which were not yet abiding by the ruling. The Court of First Instance rejected this argument because refusal was motivated by future uncertainties like the negotiations in question. It rules that such a degree of precaution regarding confidentiality would clash with the objective of allowing the widest possible access to documents.
IPA is delighted with its partial victory but has not given up the fight. Sven Völcker, a partner at the law firm of WilmerHale which represented API before the CFI, added: "We have won on some important points, but API will continue its struggle for more transparency on appeal to the Court of Justice." (cd)