14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/33

(Case T-602/22)

(2022/C 432/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Veneziana Energia Risorse Idriche Territorio Ambiente Servizi SpA (Veritas) (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A. Pasqualin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—By a measure of organisation of procedure,

—order the production of the document of which disclosure was refused (letter sent on 17 October 2019 by the Italian Authorities in EU Pilot procedure 9456/19/TAXUD);

—acquire the response, and its related annexes, from the Italian Authorities referred to on pages 2 to 3 of the contested decision;

—decide on any other measure of inquiry which may be considered useful.

—On the merits of the case,

—annul the decision of the Secretariat-General of the European Commission of 15 July 2022 by which Veritas S.p.A. was refused access to the letter sent on 17 October 2019 by the Italian Authorities in EU Pilot procedure 9456/19/TAXUD and allow the applicant the requested access.

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 an error in law and a failure to state reasons in relation to procedural rules provided for in Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. Contradictory nature.

—The applicant submits in that regard that the contested measure bases the refusal of access on a reconstruction that contradicts, without justification, that of the initial response from the institution regarding the fact that the Italian Authorities had exercised the right provided for in Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

—The error in law, the failure to state reasons and the contradictory nature of the documents in the procedure vitiate it, preventing verification of the legality of the procedure with respect to the rules applied and the assessments made, depriving the refusal of access of comprehensible justification.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misuse of power in relation to a failure to state reasons/inadequate reasoning and failure to conduct a proper preliminary investigation.

—The contested decision refuses access in relation to the exception provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, but in the present case the reasoning is merely ostensible.

—In breach of the law, access to the document requested was refused without explaining how it could specifically and effectively undermine the protection of court proceedings, nor is it proven that the risk of undermining is reasonably foreseeable and not merely hypothetical, it not being specified to which national legal proceedings the decision refers.

—It is not explained why the sending of the document to Veritas compromises the principle of equality of arms within unspecified judicial proceedings of which Veritas is not even mentioned as a party.

—The decision lacks adequate verification in respect of the existence of a ‘duly reasoned’ objection of the Member State which opposes the disclosure of the document and in respect of the real existence of the need for protection provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

(1) OJ 2001 L 145 p. 43.