# C_2010161EN.01005502.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/55

---

Action brought on 22 April 2010 — Egan and Hackett v Parliament

(Case T-190/10)

(2010/C 161/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Kathleen Egan (Athboy, Ireland) and Margaret Hackett (Borris-in-Ossory, Ireland) (represented by: C. MacEochaidh SC and J. Goode, Barristers and K. Neary, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application admissible;

| — | Annul, under Article 263 TFUE, the Decision of the European Parliament dated 12 February 2010 (A(2010)579) denying access to information requested by the applicants by means of their initial application of 16 December 2009 and the subsequent confirmatory application of 28 January 2010; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, under Article 263 TFUE, the Decision of the European Parliament dated 12 February 2010 (A(2010)579) denying access to information requested by the applicants by means of their initial application of 16 December 2009 and the subsequent confirmatory application of 28 January 2010; and

| — | Order the Parliament to pay the costs incurred by the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Parliament to pay the costs incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment the decision of the European Parliament dated 12 February 2010 (A(2010)579) refusing access to documents, consisting of public registers of assistants to members of the European Parliament, whether accredited or otherwise, containing such assistants names and/or such assistants financial interests.

The applicants claim, in support of their application, that the Parliament inappropriately relied on Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and on Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (2) as a basis for refusing access to documentation already in the public domain. Accordingly, the applicants put forward several pleas in law:

| | Firstly, the Parliament failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons for the contested decision, thereby breaching Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

Firstly, the Parliament failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons for the contested decision, thereby breaching Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

| | Secondly, the contested decision contains errors of assessment relating to the exception provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that it states that the disclosure of the relevant documents would infringe the privacy interests of the individuals concerned and/or fails to appreciate the true nature of Article 4(1)(b), and/or holds that the public interest in access to public registers of the assistants of the European Parliament members declines once the person is no longer in such position. |
| --- | --- |

Secondly, the contested decision contains errors of assessment relating to the exception provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that it states that the disclosure of the relevant documents would infringe the privacy interests of the individuals concerned and/or fails to appreciate the true nature of Article 4(1)(b), and/or holds that the public interest in access to public registers of the assistants of the European Parliament members declines once the person is no longer in such position.

| | In addition, the contested decision infringes essential procedural requirements by failing to inform the applicants of the remedies open to them upon refusal of a confirmatory application, as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

In addition, the contested decision infringes essential procedural requirements by failing to inform the applicants of the remedies open to them upon refusal of a confirmatory application, as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

| | Finally, the contested decision breaches the principles of democracy, transparency, proportionality, equality and non-discrimination by refusing access to public documentation when such documentation was previously available to applicants under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

Finally, the contested decision breaches the principles of democracy, transparency, proportionality, equality and non-discrimination by refusing access to public documentation when such documentation was previously available to applicants under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

---

(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 L 145, p. 43.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 8, p. 1.

---