# C_2015228EN.01001701.xml

| 13.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/17

---

Action brought on 20 March 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki/Parliament

(Case T-136/15)

(2015/C 228/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 13 February 2015 (302534) of the vice president of the European Parliament rejecting the confirmatory application of the applicant for access to European Parliament documents relating to all requests for quotation in all lots of Call for Tenders No ITS08 — External service provision for IT services 2008S/149-199622 (pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents) and confirming the decision of the Parliament’s Secretary General dated 18 December 2014, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 13 February 2015 (302534) of the vice president of the European Parliament rejecting the confirmatory application of the applicant for access to European Parliament documents relating to all requests for quotation in all lots of Call for Tenders No ITS08 — External service provision for IT services 2008S/149-199622 (pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents) and confirming the decision of the Parliament’s Secretary General dated 18 December 2014, and

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the application is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First, the applicant argues that the Parliament did not proceed to an individual assessment of the requested documents and refused even partial access to the requested documents, in breach of article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First, the applicant argues that the Parliament did not proceed to an individual assessment of the requested documents and refused even partial access to the requested documents, in breach of article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1).

1

| 2. | Second, the applicant contends that the justifications provided for by the Parliament with regards to the protection of public security, privacy of the individual, commercial interests of a natural or legal person and decision making progress should be rejected as wholly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second, the applicant contends that the justifications provided for by the Parliament with regards to the protection of public security, privacy of the individual, commercial interests of a natural or legal person and decision making progress should be rejected as wholly 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

---