# C_2005243EN.01000401.xml

| 1.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/4

---

Appeal brought on 27 June 2005 by Jose Maria Sison against the judgment delivered on 26 April 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03, between Jose Maria Sison and the Council of the European Union

(Case C-266/05 P)

(2005/C 243/06)

Language of the case: English

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 April 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03 (1), between Jose Maria Sison and the Council of the European Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 June 2005 by Jose Maria Sison, residing in Utrecht, Netherlands, represented by J. Fermon, A. Comte, H. Schultz and D. Gurses, lawyers.

1

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2005 in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-450/03. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2005 in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-450/03.

| — | annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, the following: (a) Council Decision of 27 February 2003 (06/c/01/03): Answer adopted by the Council on 27 February 2003 to the confirmatory application of Mr Jan Fermon sent by fax on 3 February 2003 under Article 7 (2) of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2), notified to the applicant's counsel on 28 February 2003; (b) Council Decision of 21 January 2003 (41/c/01/02): Answer adopted by the Council on 21 January 2003 to the confirmatory application of Mr Jan Fermon sent by fax on 11 December 2002 under Article 7 (2) of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, notified to the Applicant's counsel on 23 January 2003; and (c) Council Decision of 2 October 2003 (36/c/02/03): Reply adopted by the Council on 2 October 2003 to the confirmatory application by Mr Jan Fermon (2/03) made to the Council by telefax on 5 September 2003 registered by the General Secretariat of the Council on 8 September 2003, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, for access to documents. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, the following: (a) Council Decision of 27 February 2003 (06/c/01/03): Answer adopted by the Council on 27 February 2003 to the confirmatory application of Mr Jan Fermon sent by fax on 3 February 2003 under Article 7 (2) of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2), notified to the applicant's counsel on 28 February 2003; (b) Council Decision of 21 January 2003 (41/c/01/02): Answer adopted by the Council on 21 January 2003 to the confirmatory application of Mr Jan Fermon sent by fax on 11 December 2002 under Article 7 (2) of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, notified to the Applicant's counsel on 23 January 2003; and (c) Council Decision of 2 October 2003 (36/c/02/03): Reply adopted by the Council on 2 October 2003 to the confirmatory application by Mr Jan Fermon (2/03) made to the Council by telefax on 5 September 2003 registered by the General Secretariat of the Council on 8 September 2003, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, for access to documents.

2

| — | require the Council to bear the costs of suit. |
| --- | --- |

—

require the Council to bear the costs of suit.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First Instance should be annulled on the following grounds:

| 1. | Infringement of Articles 220, 225 and 230 EC, of the general principle of Community law enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 ECHR and of the rights of defense.
  The Court of First Instance unduly limits the scope of its review of legality without responding to the applicant's arguments. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of Articles 220, 225 and 230 EC, of the general principle of Community law enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 ECHR and of the rights of defense.

The Court of First Instance unduly limits the scope of its review of legality without responding to the applicant's arguments.

| 2. | Infringement of the right of access to documents (Article 1 EU second paragraph and Article 6(1) EU, Article 255 EC and, Article 4, paragraph 1 (a), Article 4 paragraph 6, and of Articles 220, 225 and 230 EC).
  The review made by the Court of first Instance effectively leads to a complete discretion of the Council and to a complete denial of the right of access to documents. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of the right of access to documents (Article 1 EU second paragraph and Article 6(1) EU, Article 255 EC and, Article 4, paragraph 1 (a), Article 4 paragraph 6, and of Articles 220, 225 and 230 EC).

The review made by the Court of first Instance effectively leads to a complete discretion of the Council and to a complete denial of the right of access to documents.

| 3. | Infringement of the duty to state reason (Article 253 EC) and of Articles 220, 225 and 230 EC.
  The Court of First Instance review leads to a denial of the duty to state reason and infringes Article 253 EC. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of the duty to state reason (Article 253 EC) and of Articles 220, 225 and 230 EC.

The Court of First Instance review leads to a denial of the duty to state reason and infringes Article 253 EC.

| 4. | Infringement of the right of access to documents (Article 1 EU second paragraph and Article 6(1) EU, Article 255 EC) and of Article 6.2 of the ECHR and the right to the presumption of innocence and Article 13 ECHR establishing the right to an effective remedy to violations of the rights enshrined in the ECHR.
  The Court of First Instance arbitrarily limits the scope of the case. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Infringement of the right of access to documents (Article 1 EU second paragraph and Article 6(1) EU, Article 255 EC) and of Article 6.2 of the ECHR and the right to the presumption of innocence and Article 13 ECHR establishing the right to an effective remedy to violations of the rights enshrined in the ECHR.

The Court of First Instance arbitrarily limits the scope of the case.

| 5. | Infringement of the right of access to documents and of Article 1 EU second paragraph and Article 6(1) EU, Article 255 EC and, Article 4, paragraph 5 and Article 9, paragraph 3 of Council Regulation 1049/2001.
  The Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 4 and 9 of Council Regulation 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Infringement of the right of access to documents and of Article 1 EU second paragraph and Article 6(1) EU, Article 255 EC and, Article 4, paragraph 5 and Article 9, paragraph 3 of Council Regulation 1049/2001.

The Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 4 and 9 of Council Regulation 1049/2001.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 09.07.05, p. 15

1

(2)  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

2

---