15.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/17

(Case T-504/18)

(2018/C 373/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: XG (represented by: S. Kaisergruber and A. Brughelle-Vernet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—Declare the application admissible and well founded;

Consequently:

—Annul the decision of 3 July 2018 adopted by [confidential] the European Commission to maintain the refusal of access to the applicant to Commission premises;

—Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the author of the contested act did not have the power to adopt it.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3 of Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/443 of 13 March 2015 on Security in the Commission (OJ 2015 L 72, p. 41; ‘Decision 2015/443’) and the absence of legal basis of the contested act.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights of the applicant, in particular breach of Article 67 TFEU, Article 6 TEU, Article 3 of Decision 2015/443 and Articles 6, 7, 8, 15, 27, 31, 41, 42, 47, 48 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This plea is divided into three parts:

—first part, alleging infringement of the rights to freedom, privacy, protection of personal data and the right freely to exercise a profession;

—second part, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration, transparency, access to documents and an effective remedy and infringement of the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defence;

—third part, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

4.Fourth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the principles of the formal and material statement of reasons of unilateral acts. This plea is divided into two parts:

—first part, alleging a lack of formal reasoning of the contested act;

—second part, alleging a lack of substantive reasoning of the contested act.

(1) Confidential data redacted.