22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/47

(Case T-383/08)

(2008/C 301/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: New Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A.-M. Alamanou, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—Annulment of the Commission decision in the form of a letter dated 2 July 2008 and received by the applicant on the same day, refusing to the latter access to the names of the companies and the individuals cited in the documents disclosed by the Commission; and

—Order that the costs of, and occasioned by these proceedings be borne by the respondent.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By way of the present application, the applicant challenges the Commission decision notified to the latter by letter dated 2 July 2008 by which the Commission refused to disclose the names of the companies and of the individuals involved in the so-called ‘Eximo’ case which are cited in the documents disclosed to the applicant by the Commission in reply to its initial application.

The applicant seeks to annul the contested decision on the basis of the following grounds:

First, according to the applicant, the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of law in so far as the Commission wrongly interpreted and relied on the exceptions provided in Article 4(1)(b), 4(2) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 without carrying out an assessment of fact or setting out the reasons for its refusal. In addition, the applicant submits that the Commission made an error of appreciation of the facts in finding that the commercial interests of the companies concerned and the privacy and the integrity of the individuals involved would have been seriously undermined should their names be disclosed. Furthermore, the applicant contends that, by opting for an extensive interpretation of the term ‘protection of commercial interests’ and ‘protection of privacy and integrity of the individual’, the Commission violated the principle of the widest possible access to documents as set out in Article 1(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Second, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringed Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in so far as the Commission failed to grant the applicant full access to a document which was already publicly available.

Third, the applicant submits that the Commission violated the obligation to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC, by failing to inform the applicant on the grounds on which it based its decision and by simply referring to the exceptions set out in Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

* * *

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).