- 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-214/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Typke v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0214
62013TN0214
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 171/35
(Case T-214/13)
2013/C 171/65
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Rainer Typke (Hasbergen, Germany) (represented by: B. Cortese and A. Salerno, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 February 2013 denying applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) — in the procedure GESTDEM 2012/3258;
—Annul the implied negative decision of the European Commission of 13 March 2013 on applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — in the procedure GESTDEM 2013/0068;
—Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as well as of other provisions of the said regulation, as:
—The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s request would not fall within the realm of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, implying the creation of new documents instead of the access to existing ones, is unfounded;
—The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be disproportionate, therefore inadmissible, even if considering the possibility of granting partial access, is unfounded;
—The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be barred by the need not to disclose third parties’ personal data is unfounded; and
—The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be barred by the need to preserve the confidentiality of the proceedings of the Selection Board, and by the need to protect the latter’s decision making process, is unfounded.
(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 2001 L 145, p. 43)