13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/35

(Case T-331/11)

2011/C 238/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Leonard Besselink (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—Annul the decision of the Council of 1 April 2011 refusing to grant full access to document 9689/10 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), as communicated to the applicant on 7 April 2011 in a letter bearing the reference ‘04/c/01/11’; and

—Order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on a wrong interpretation and application of Article 4(1)(a), third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which relates to the protection of the public interest with regard to international relations, as:

—The Council was wrong in not taking into account the constitutional nature of the document which the applicant requests to have access to;

—The applicant considers that access to document 9689/10 is also warranted on the basis of the freedom of expression contained in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

—The Council omitted to take into account the specific circumstances and subject matter of the present case; and

—The Council wrongly referred to hypothetical negative consequences of disclosure for future negotiations to be conducted by the Union.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has been wrongly applied, and the principle of proportionality breached, insofar as the Council has failed to consider whether it was appropriate to grant partial access and to confine refusal to the parts of document 9689/10 that were appropriate and strictly necessary.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Council did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the contested decision.