Appeal brought on 29 November 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/04: Association de la presse internationale ASBL v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-532/07 P)

(2008/C 22/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Docksey and P. Aalto, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission respectfully submits that, first, the Court of First Instance has erred in law by interpreting court proceedings exception to the effect that the institutions must consider requests for access to written pleadings in non-infringement actions on a case by case basis as from the date of the hearing. In this respect the Commission respectfully submits that the conclusions of the Court of First Instance are inconsistent with its reasoning, that the CFI did not take into account the interest in the proper administration of justice or the interest of other persons mentioned in the procedure, and that the CFI only considered the rights and obligations of one of the parties. Whilst court documents submitted by the institutions are not excluded from the scope of Regulation 1049/2001 (1), the conclusion reached by the CFI has no basis in Community legislation or in the case law of the Court of Justice.

Second, the CFI has erred in law by interpreting the investigations exception to the effect that the Commission must consider requests for access to written pleadings in infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC on a case by case basis as from the date of the judgement, including actions which have been decided but not yet been resolved, thus weakening the ability of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties to ensure respect by Member States of their obligations under Community law.

Third, the CFI has erred in law by interpreting the court proceedings exception to the effect that the institutions must consider requests for access to their written pleadings on a case by case basis in actions which have been decided but which are related to pending actions, thus weakening their ability to defend their interests before the Community Courts and weakening the ability of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties to seek to enforce Community law.

(1)  OJ L 145, p. 43.