- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-423/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — De Masi v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0423
62016TN0423
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
10.10.2016
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 371/15
(Case T-423/16)
(2016/C 371/17)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Fabio De Masi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Prof. A. Fischer-Lescano)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the defendant’s decision of 20 May 2016 on the application for access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group;
—annul the defendant’s decision of 13 July 2016 on the application for access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group;
—order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law: infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)
The applicant claims that the defendant’s decisions of May 2016 and 13 July 2016 infringe the right to an appropriate decision on the confirmatory application decision, laid down in the aforementioned provision.
2.Second plea in law: infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
The applicant also submits that the refusal of full access to the documents concerning the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) set up by the Council in addition infringes its right of scrutiny over those documents, which is guaranteed by the aforementioned provisions.
The applicant claims, in that regard, that the exceptions to the transparency requirement to which Article 4(3) and (1)(a), fourth indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 refers are not applicable in the present case.
Furthermore, there was a lack of consideration and a failure to state adequate reasons, as well as an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents.
(1) 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 2012 L 145, p. 43).