Judgment of the General Court Third Chamber of 28 September 2022, Agrofert v Parliament, T-174/21
| Date | 28 September 2022 |
| Year | 2022 |
5
Thus, the provisions of the Standard Rules of Procedure relied on by the Commission in the contested
decisions cannot permit a protection of the individual positions expressed by the Member States that
goes beyond that laid down by Regulation No 1049/2001.
9
Furthermore, it follows from the case-law
10
that the EU legislation on access to documents cannot
justify an institution’s refusal, as a matter of principle, to grant access to documents pertaining to its
deliberations on the basis that they contain information relating to positions taken by representatives
of the Member States. It follows that, as regards public access to the documents inherent in the work
of comitology committees, the Commission cannot take the view that the relevant legal framework
excludes, as a matter of principle, public access to the individual positions of the Member States.
Moreover, the General Court observes that the provisions of the Standard Rules of Procedure relied
on by the Commission in the contested decisions cannot be interpreted as precluding public access,
on request, to the individual positions of the Member States. The General Court states that the fact
that, according to the Standard Rules of Procedure, the summary record of the work of the
committees does not mention the individual position of the Member States has no bearing on access
to documents and cannot therefore prejudice public access, upon application, to documents showing
those individual positions.
Thus, the General Court concludes that, contrary to what the Commission maintained in the
contested decisions, the comitology procedures, and in particular the Standard Rules of Procedure,
do not in themselves require access to documents showing the individual position of the Member
States to be refused in order to protect the decision-making process of the committee concerned,
11
which, however, does not in any way prevent the Commission, in duly justified cases, from refusing
access to documents which show the individual position of the Member States within that committee
where their disclosure would be likely specifically to undermine the interests protected b y the
exceptions provided for by Regulation No 1049/2001.
12
After having examined the other grounds put forward by the Commission in the contested decisions,
the General Court finds that those grounds do not make it possible to establish such harm and,
consequently, to justify reliance on the exception laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of
Regulation No 1049/2001, even assuming it applies.
Therefore, the General Court finds that, in the contested decisions, the Commission infringed the first
documents on the ground that to do so would seriously undermine an ongoing decision -making
process.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 28 Septembe r 2022,
Agrofert v Parliament, T-174/21
Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to the investigation against
the former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic on the misuse of EU funds and potential conflicts of
interest – Refusal to grant access – Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections,
investigations and audits – Interest in bringing pro ceedings in part ceasing to exist – No need to
adjudicate in part – Obligation to state reasons
9
10
See, to that effect, judgment of 10 October 2001, British American Tobacco International (Investments) v Commission (T-111/00, EU:T:2001:250,
paragraph 52 and the case-law cited).
11
Within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regula tion No 1049/2001.
12
To continue reading
Request your trial