Judgments nº T-166/19 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, November 25, 2020

• Resolution Date: November 25, 2020
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-166/19

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks - Documents submitted within the framework of the Joint Committee - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in respect of international relations - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)

In Case T-166/19,

Marco Bronckers, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by P. Kreijger, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Commission, represented by C. Ehrbar and A. Spina, acting as Agents,

defendant,

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 150 final of 10 January 2019, rejecting the confirmatory application for access to the documents ‘Tequila cases found by the Tequila Regulatory Council to be informed to the European Commission (Ares(2018 4023479)’ and ‘Verification Reports in the European Market (Reportes de Verificación en el Mercado Europeo) (Ares(2018) 4023509)’,

THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber),

composed of H. Kanninen, President, N. Półtorak (Rapporteur) and M. Stancu, Judges,

Registrar: P. Cullen, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure and further to the hearing on 15 July 2020,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute

1 On 8 May 2018, the applicant, Mr Marco Bronckers, applied under 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) to have access to all of the minutes of the meetings of the Joint Committee on Spirit Drinks (‘the joint committee’) set up under the 1997 Agreement between the European Community and the Mexican United States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks (OJ 1997 L 175, p. 33, ‘the 1997 agreement’). The European Commission decided to grant the applicant partial access to the minutes of two meetings of the joint committee, that is to say on 30 March 2011 and 3 June 2013.

2 On 3 July 2018, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the documents disclosed and did not challenge the redactions made, but only the completeness of the documents selected by the Commission. In parallel, he submitted to the Commission’s Directorate-General (DG) for Agriculture a further request for access to certain documents referred to in the documents disclosed. The applicant stated the following:

- ‘In the minutes of the meeting held on 30 March 2011 (at point 2) reference is made to a discussion of cases where Mexico detected violations regarding Tequila on the European market. This was done on the basis of a list (referred to in the minutes of the meeting on 3 June 2013, at point 4).

- In the minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2013, reference is made (at point 4) to documents presented by the Consejo Regulador de Tequila involving products produced in the European Union that are considered by Mexico to be a clear infringement of the geographical indication Tequila.’

3 By letter of 21 August 2018, the Commission identified two relevant documents, namely Ares(2018) 4023479 and Ares(2018) 4023509 (‘the documents requested’). Since the documents requested originated, according to the Commission, from the Mexican authorities, those authorities were consulted in accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The Commission refused to grant access to those documents on the basis of the exceptions laid down in Article 4(2) and (l)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 relating to protection of the commercial interests of a legal person and protection of the public interest as regards international relations.

4 On 5 September 2018, the applicant filed a confirmatory application requesting that the Commission reconsider its position. By email of 26 September 2018, the Commission extended the time limit for replying to the confirmatory application by 15 working days, pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. By email of 17 October 2018, the Commission informed the applicant that it would be unable to respond within the extended time limit.

5 By email of 14 November 2018, the Commission informed the applicant that, in accordance with Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the Secretariat-General of the Commission had again consulted the Mexican authorities on the possibility of (partially) disclosing the documents at issue.

6 On 10 January 2019, the Commission dismissed the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to the documents requested (‘the contested decision’).

Procedure and forms of order sought

7 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 14 March 2019, the applicant brought the present action.

8 On 19 July 2019, the applicant requested that the Court grant a measure of inquiry with a view to verifying the content and the private nature of the documents requested.

9 On 31 March 2020, the Court, by way of a measure of organisation of procedure pursuant to Article 89(3) of the Rules of Procedure, questioned the parties on whether they wished to be heard at an oral hearing despite the COVID-19 health crisis. The parties replied within the prescribed period.

10 The parties presented oral argument and replied to the Court’s oral questions at the hearing on 15 July 2020.

11 The applicant claims that the Court should:

- annul the contested decision;

- order the Commission to pay the costs.

12 The Commission contends that the Court should:

- dismiss the action;

- order the applicant to pay the costs.

Law

13 The applicant raises four pleas in support of his action.

14 The first plea alleges infringement of Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 and/or of Article 296 TFEU. The second plea alleges infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and/or of Article 296 TFEU. The third plea alleges infringement of the obligation to disclose the documents requested on grounds of an overriding public interest, on the assumption that all or some of the documents to which access is sought involve commercial interests under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. Finally, the fourth plea alleges infringement of Article 4(6) and (7) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and/or of Article 296 TFEU.

15 The Court considers it appropriate to examine the complaints relating to the infringement of Article 296 TFEU before examining the other complaints and pleas in law.

The complaints alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU

16 The applicant raises complaints relating to an infringement of Article 296 TFEU concerning the Commission’s application of the exceptions under Article 4(1)(a), third indent, and Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and the possibility of granting partial access to the documents requested.

17 The Commission disputes those arguments.

18 The Commission contends that the complaint alleging a failure to state reasons, raised under the first plea in law, is inadmissible on the ground that the arguments submitted by the applicant in that respect do not satisfy the requirements of Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure.

19 In that regard, it should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the requirement under Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure that the application must contain, inter alia, the subject matter of the dispute and a brief statement of the pleas in law on which it is based implies that the statement must be sufficiently clear and precise as to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to decide the case, if necessary without other supporting information (judgment of 29 April 2020, Intercontact Budapest v CdT, T-640/18, not published, EU:T:2020:167, paragraph 24).

20 In the present case, Article 296 TFEU is mentioned in the title of the first plea in law of the application. Furthermore, the applicant puts forward a number of arguments calling into question not just the merits of the contested decision, but also whether its statement of reasons is sufficient. Those elements enable the Court to understand the applicant’s reasoning and the Commission to set out its arguments in that regard.

21 Consequently, it must be concluded that, contrary to what the Commission contends, the complaint alleging a failure to state reasons is admissible.

22 As a preliminary point, it should noted that the statement of reasons required by Article 296 TFEU and by Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of...