EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/38

(Case T-838/16)

(2017/C 038/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BP (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: E. Lazar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—order the defendant to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of mishandling and leakage of his/her personal data and other several irregularities occurred during the defendant’s proceedings for dealing with his/her requests to access documents under Regulation no 1049/2001 and his/her requests to access information under article 13 of Regulation 45/2001;

—order the defendant to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of violations of several rules intended to confer rights on individuals;

—order the defendant to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant due to the defendant’s irregular actions during the execution of the judgment in case T-658/13P;

—order the defendant to compensate the applicant’s moral prejudice;

—order the defendant to pay material damages;

—order the defendant to reimburse the legal costs paid by the applicant for seeking legal advice in pre-litigation phase;

—order the defendant to pay default interest on the amount eventually awarded;

—order the defendant to pay the entire costs, even in the case the application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging breaches of rules intended to confer rights on individuals, including, amongst others, a breach of data protection rules envisaged in article 4(1) (b) of the Regulation no 1049/2001 read in conjunction with article 4(4) of the same regulation and with implementing rules of Regulation 1049/2001, a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a breach of data protection rules envisaged in various articles of the Regulation no 45/2001 and in implementing rules of Regulation 45/2001, and a breach of the duty of care.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of confidentiality which led to the leak of the applicant’s personal data to third parties and to the press, and alleging a misuse of powers and manifest and grave lack of due diligence and care during processing operations of applicant’s personal data