Gerecht EU: heel summiere toewijzing toegang tot ACTA-onderhandelingsdocumenten
Gerecht EU 19 maart 2013, zaak T-301/10 (Sophie in 't Veld tegen Europese Commissie) - dossier
Als randvermelding. ACTA. De toegang tot (onderhandelings)documenten van het ontwerp van Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is geweigerd op basis van het publiek belang. Verzoekster verzoekt om de nietigverklaring van het besluit van de Commissie van 4 mei 2010 waarbij verzoekster volledige toegang tot alle documenten betreffende de onderhandelingen over een ontwerp van Internationale Handelsovereenkomst ter bestrijding van namaak (ACTA) is geweigerd. Het Gerecht vernietigt summierlijk de beslissing van de Commissie voor zover het de toegang tot bepaalde onderdelen van en redactionele wijzigingen van deze documenten heeft geweigerd.
140 However, with regard to document 21 of the list annexed to the decision of 4 May 2010, it should be noted that this is not a document expressing a negotiating position of one or more parties, but at most a list of questions for discussion, without indirect implications. In those circumstances, it must be considered that the refusal of the request for access with respect to that document is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, as the Commission wrongly held that the disclosure of that document would compromise the protection of the public interest in international relations.
141 It follows that whereas, contrary to what the applicant maintains, the Commission did not, in the exercise of its margin of discretion in respect of the exceptions to the right of access under Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001, commit a manifest error by refusing access to documents 1 to 20 and 22 of the list annexed to the decision of 4 May 2010, for the reasons stated in Section 5.1 of that decision, it is appropriate, however, to uphold the present part of the third plea regarding document 21 of the list annexed to that decision.
149 It appears from the review of the documents submitted by the Commission pursuant to the order of 9 June 2011 that, while document 26 does in fact reflect, as the Commission states in the decision of 4 May 2010 (Section 5.3), the position of a negotiating party as well as the European Union’s view on that position, it does not appear, however, that such is the case with regard to document 25.
150 Document 25 takes the form of a document of the European Union the content of which is essentially descriptive and general, concerning European Union law in the field of intellectual property, in relation to the Internet. It does not refer to the position of any negotiating party and does not express, despite the Commission’s claim at the hearing, any specific position of the Commission with regard to a position of such a party.
151 It follows that, whereas the refusal to grant access to document 26 does not, contrary to what the applicant claims, contain any manifest error of assessment, having regard to the content of that document and the views correctly expressed by the Commission in Section 5.3 of the decision of 4 May 2010, it is appropriate, nevertheless, to uphold this part of the third plea regarding document 25 of the list annexed to that decision.
224 It follows from all the foregoing that the action must be dismissed, except in so far as it challenges the refusal to grant access to documents 21 and 25 in the list annexed to the decision of 4 May 2010 and the redactions mentioned in paragraph 184 above, made in documents 45, 47 and 48 in the list annexed to that decision.
