# C_2013171EN.01003501.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/35

---

Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Typke v Commission

(Case T-214/13)

2013/C 171/65

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rainer Typke (Hasbergen, Germany) (represented by: B. Cortese and A. Salerno, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

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 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;

1

| — | 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

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. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 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 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 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. |
| --- | --- |

—

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)

1

---