Case T-111/00

British American Tobacco International (Investments) Ltd

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Public access to Commission documents — Minutes of the Committee on Excise Duties — Partial access — Exception — Identities of national delegations — Protection of an institution's interest in the confidentiality of its proceedings’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 10 October 2001   II-3000

Summary of the Judgment

1. Procedure — Decision replacing, during the proceedings, the contested decision — New factor — Extension of the initial claims and pleadings

2. Commission — Public right of access to Commission documents — Decision 94/90 — Exceptions to the principle of access to documents — Protection of an institution's interest in the confidentiality of its proceedings — Right of the Commission to claim confidentiality for the minutes of the Committee on Excise Duties

   (Commission Decision 94/90)

3. Commission — Public right of access to Commission documents — Decision 94/90 — Exceptions to the principle of access to documents — Strict interpretation and application — Protection of an institution's interest in the confidentiality of its proceedings — Duty to balance relevant interests — Scope

   (Commission Decision 94/90)

1.  Heads of claim directed against a decision which is replaced during the course of proceedings may be regarded as being directed against the replacement decision because the latter decision constitutes a new factor which entitles the applicant to amend its heads of claim and pleas in law. It would, in fact, not be in the interests of the administration of justice and would be contrary to the requirement of procedural economy to oblige the applicant, in such an eventuality, to make a fresh application to the Court.

   (see para. 22)

2.  The deliberations of the Committee on Excise Duties, and the documents of that committee, are to be regarded as being the deliberations and documents of the Commission. The main task of the committee, which was constituted in pursuance of a Community act, is to assist the Commission, which presides over it and provides its secretariat. The Commission thus draws up the minutes which the committee adopts. In addition, it appears that this committee does not have its own administration, budget, archives or premises, still less an address of its own. Consequently, the committee is not a natural or legal person, nor a Member State or any other national or international body, and cannot be regarded as another ‘Community institution or body’ within the meaning of the code of conduct adopted by Decision 94/90 on public access to Commission documents.

   Given that the Committee on Excise Duties is thus to be regarded as part of the Commission, the Commission is entitled to rely upon the exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of its deliberations where the documents to which access has been requested concern the deliberations of that committee.

   (see paras 37-38)

3.  Any exception to the right of access to documents covered by Decision 94/90 on public access to Commission documents must be interpreted and applied strictly. The Commission nevertheless enjoys a margin of discretion in applying the non-mandatory exception relating to the confidentiality of its proceedings, albeit that in the exercise of that discretion it must strike a genuine balance between the interest of the citizen in obtaining access to its documents and its own interest in protecting the confidentiality of its deliberations. The code of conduct adopted by the Commission in Decision 94/90 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, since that would fail to comply with the obligation to balance the interests involved. Furthermore, the interests at stake must be balanced on a case by case basis with account being taken of the content of the document in question.

   (see paras 40, 52-53)