8.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/18

(Case T-306/12)

2012/C 273/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea (Cappezzano Paimore, Italy) and Mihaela Spirlea (Cappezzano Piamore) (represented by: V. Foerster and T. Pahl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—accept the present application made on the basis of Article 263 TFEU;

—declare the action admissible; and

—declare it well founded, and accordingly find that the Commission has committed substantial procedural irregularities and other substantive errors of law;

—on that basis annul the decision of the European Commission’s Secretariat-General of 21 June 2012 (SG.B.5/MKu/psi-Ares (2012)744102), in so far it concerns the letters of information of the Commission of 10 May 2011 and 10 October 2011;

—order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The applicants claim that the Commission infringed the duty to investigate ‘exceptions’ under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the extent to which such an investigation is to be carried out.

The applicants allege an infringement of the duty to state reasons in refusing access to the information letters of the Commission of 10 May 2011 and 10 October 2011 to the extent required by law.

In this regard, the applicants submit that the equating of the ‘informal’ EU pilot procedure with the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations laid down in Article 258 TFEU constitutes an error of law.

4. Erroneous assessment of the partial access to the documents

In this regard, the applicants argue that the Commission disregarded the right to partial access to the information letters under Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and manifestly failed to carry out a concrete examination.

5. Infringement of the principles of proportionality/‘overriding public interest’

The applicants submit, in this regard, that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality, since it failed to correctly weigh up the exception relied on of “protection of the purpose of investigations” against the “overriding public interest” (Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

The applicants claim, in this respect, that the Commission systematically infringed — to the applicants’ detriment — its self-imposed rules for handling complaints from EU-citizens and, consequently, infringed on a continual basis its commitment to bind itself by its own rules (Annex to communication COM(2002) 141).

*

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).