The president of the Administrative Court said there would likely be a catch up session for this particular issue.
The environmental organisation had lodged an appeal with the Administrative Court because the Minister of Social Security had refused to provide them with information relating to pension fund investments. Greenpeace had sent a letter on 1 August, to which Romain Schneider did not reply. This did not please the president of the Administrative Court, who repeated several times that the Minister had a lawful obligation to respond.
Moreover, shortly after the Greenpeace letter was sent, Schneider spoke about transparency and openness to dialogue in a press release. The president of the court pointed out that the minister had found time to issue this press release, in response to the government's defence that the minister was on holiday during the August summer break.
The government's representative stated that the non-governmental organisation had requested information to assess the financial risks of the pension fund. This should not fall under Greenpeace's remit. The main mission of the pension fund is to ensure the preservation of the pension system and not the protection of nature and the environment, according to the representative's statement.
On this point, the President of the Administrative Court reiterated that Schneider had not responded, despite the obligation to do so. In this context, he told the government's representative that he was keen to have a note of oral argument, particularly as to whether the Minister had to give information, which had nothing to do with the protection of the environment. In this regard, Philippe Penning, Greenpeace's lawyer, explained that the association had requested information that was not on the pension fund website. The president concluded by saying it was up to the minister to sort the issue and he had to observe the law.
The case remains open for the time being.
