27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/37

(Case T-36/23)

(2023/C 112/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Matina Stevi (Brussels, Belgium), The New York Times Company (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul the Commission’s confirmatory decision C(2022) 8371 final of 15 November 2022 (‘the contested decision’);

—order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging a violation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and specifically of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and a violation of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. By applying an extra-legal argument based on Article 7(1) of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2121 (2) the Commission has unlawfully set aside Regulation No 1049/2001 and specifically Article 3(a) thereof, considering non-registered text messages as not qualifying as documents under Regulation No 1049/2001 and/or by not applying Article 3(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to the requested information, also violating the fundamental right to receive information protected under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Regulation No 1049/2001 and specifically of Article 2(3) thereof. By applying an extra-legal argument based on Article 7(1) of Decision 2021/2121, the Commission has unlawfully set aside Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, considering non-registered text messages as not qualifying as documents held by the Commission under Regulation No 1049/2001 and/or by interpreting Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 as leading to the conclusion that the requested information would not be held by the Commission.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of good administration and the obligation to state reasons. The Commission in the contested decision holds without stating any reasons that the requested information does not exist, contradicting the President of the Commission without any foundation, which qualifies as maladministration.

* Language of the case: English.

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).

Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2121 of 6 July 2020 on records management and archives (OJ 2021, L 430, p. 30).