# C_2011340EN.01002701.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/27

---

Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission

(Case T-480/11)

2011/C 340/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | admit the present application for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the present application for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union;

| — | declare it admissible and, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare it admissible and,

| — | declare the action well founded, and, consequently,






  — | rule that the Commission did not carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents covered by the request for access, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare the action well founded, and, consequently,

—

rule that the Commission did not carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents covered by the request for access,

| — | rule that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in the application of the exceptions provided for by Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in the application of the exceptions provided for by Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001,

| — | rule that the Commission disregarded the right of partial access to documents in accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the Commission disregarded the right of partial access to documents in accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001,

| — | rule that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by reason of its failure to weigh the exceptions invoked against the public interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by reason of its failure to weigh the exceptions invoked against the public interest;

| — | on that basis, annul the decision of the Secretariat-General of the European Commission of 30 June 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

on that basis, annul the decision of the Secretariat-General of the European Commission of 30 June 2011;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents covered by the request for access and, as a result, an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision, in so far as the Commission referred to a category of documents (documents pertaining to an audit) rather than to the actual information contained in those documents. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents covered by the request for access and, as a result, an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision, in so far as the Commission referred to a category of documents (documents pertaining to an audit) rather than to the actual information contained in those documents.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the application of the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001: (1)







  — | in so far as the Commission took the view that disclosure of the documents to which access was sought would hinder the progress of the audits, whereas (i) the sole purpose of the audit procedure was to check whether or not the costs incurred in performance of a contract were eligible, and (ii) the information in the documents requested is purely factual; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the application of the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001: (1)

1

—

in so far as the Commission took the view that disclosure of the documents to which access was sought would hinder the progress of the audits, whereas (i) the sole purpose of the audit procedure was to check whether or not the costs incurred in performance of a contract were eligible, and (ii) the information in the documents requested is purely factual;

| — | in so far as the Commission took the view that disclosure of the documents requested would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, whereas it was necessary for the applicants to see those documents in order to be able effectively to defend their rights in the context of the audit procedure, in which all parties could set out their views. |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as the Commission took the view that disclosure of the documents requested would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, whereas it was necessary for the applicants to see those documents in order to be able effectively to defend their rights in the context of the audit procedure, in which all parties could set out their views.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging disregard of the right of partial access to the documents requested in accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 by reason of the refusal to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents to which access was sought. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging disregard of the right of partial access to the documents requested in accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 by reason of the refusal to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents to which access was sought.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality resulting from the failure to weigh the exceptions invoked against the public interest, in so far as it would be in the interest of the public to allow it to verify how the Commission conducts its audit procedures and to inform contractors of the procedures to be established in order to meet the formal requirements. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality resulting from the failure to weigh the exceptions invoked against the public interest, in so far as it would be in the interest of the public to allow it to verify how the Commission conducts its audit procedures and to inform contractors of the procedures to be established in order to meet the formal requirements.

---

(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

---