# C_2010260EN.01001801.xml

| 25.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/18

---

Action brought on 14 July 2010 — In ‘t Veld v Commission

(Case T-301/10)

()

2010/C 260/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Sophie in t Veld (Brussels, Belgium), (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of the Commission of 4 May 2010, ref. SG.E.3/HP/psi-Ares (2010) 234950, to refuse full access to the applicant’s confirmatory request for access to documents; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the Commission of 4 May 2010, ref. SG.E.3/HP/psi-Ares (2010) 234950, to refuse full access to the applicant’s confirmatory request for access to documents; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the Decision of the Commission of 4 May 2010 to refuse full access to documents concerning the negotiations of a new Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, requested by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1).

1

In support of his action, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

| | Firstly, the Commission’s Decision infringes Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 as it impliedly refuses access to a number of documents requested by the applicant by failing to explain why access to these documents was refused. |
| --- | --- |

Firstly, the Commission’s Decision infringes Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 as it impliedly refuses access to a number of documents requested by the applicant by failing to explain why access to these documents was refused.

| | Secondly, the decision in question is based on an erroneous application of Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 as the Commission failed to treat Article 4(4) as a procedural rule regarding the consultation of third parties and in fact applied it as a further exception to the obligation to disclose documents. |
| --- | --- |

Secondly, the decision in question is based on an erroneous application of Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 as the Commission failed to treat Article 4(4) as a procedural rule regarding the consultation of third parties and in fact applied it as a further exception to the obligation to disclose documents.

| | Thirdly, the Commission’s Decision misapplied in law and in fact Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001:






  — | Firstly, as the general reasons provided by the Commission cannot in principle be covered by the exception for the protection of the public interest as regard the European Union’s international relations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Thirdly, the Commission’s Decision misapplied in law and in fact Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001:

—

Firstly, as the general reasons provided by the Commission cannot in principle be covered by the exception for the protection of the public interest as regard the European Union’s international relations;

| — | Secondly, as the Contested Decision contains manifest errors in its assessment of individual documents. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, as the Contested Decision contains manifest errors in its assessment of individual documents.

| | In addition, should the Court consider that any parts of the documents requested by the applicant are protected under Article 4(1)(a), third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001, the applicant submits that Article 4(6) has been wrongly applied, and the principle of proportionality breached, insofar as the Commission has failed to consider whether it was appropriate to grant partial access and to confine refusal to the parts of documents that were appropriate and strictly necessary. |
| --- | --- |

In addition, should the Court consider that any parts of the documents requested by the applicant are protected under Article 4(1)(a), third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001, the applicant submits that Article 4(6) has been wrongly applied, and the principle of proportionality breached, insofar as the Commission has failed to consider whether it was appropriate to grant partial access and to confine refusal to the parts of documents that were appropriate and strictly necessary.

| | Finally, the applicant also submits that the Commission did not fulfil its obligation to state reasons for the decision in question, thereby breaching Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

Finally, the applicant also submits that the Commission did not fulfil its obligation to state reasons for the decision in question, thereby breaching Article 296 TFEU.

---

(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).

1

---