EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-537/19: Action brought on 30 July 2019 — DK v GSA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0537

62019TN0537

July 30, 2019
With Google you find a lot.
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/65

(Case T-537/19)

(2019/C 328/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: DK (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European GNSS Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the GSA decision of 20 May 2019 refusing full access to the document ‘summary of 26 June 2017 by Mr [X]’;

order the GSA to pay the costs.

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 of law in the application of Article 4(1)(a) of 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). In that regard, the applicant claims that the decision of the European GNSS Agency (GSA) of 20 May 2019 refusing it full access to the document ‘summary of 26 June 2017 by Mr [X]’ is illegal in that that refusal is based on the public security exception provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001, whereas the document in question:

cannot be connected with issues of public security since it concerns a case connected with agency personnel and;

cannot be classified [RESTREINT/RESTRICTED EU].

2.Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the application of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In that regard, the applicant submits that the contested decision is illegal in so far as the refusal is based on the exception in respect of protection of personal data of the natural persons named in the document, provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001, since relying on that exception is, in the present case, unjustified and disproportionate.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia