# C_2012331EN.01003201.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/32

---

Action brought on 10 September 2012 —  FH (*1) v Commission

(Case T-405/12)

(2012/C 331/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FH (*1) (represented by: É. Boigelot and R. Murru, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible and well-founded;

| — | Consequently,






  — | before making its ruling, and as a measure of enquiry, order the production of the framework contract DI/06350-00 which was concluded between the Commission and the company Intrasoft; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Consequently,

—

before making its ruling, and as a measure of enquiry, order the production of the framework contract DI/06350-00 which was concluded between the Commission and the company Intrasoft;

| — | annul the decision of 10 July 2012 and, as a result, the erratum of 11 July 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 10 July 2012 and, as a result, the erratum of 11 July 2012;

| — | order the European Commission to compensate it for the harm suffered by the applicant, set at the total sum of EUR 12 500, which is subject to increase in the course of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to compensate it for the harm suffered by the applicant, set at the total sum of EUR 12 500, which is subject to increase in the course of the proceedings;

| — | in any event, order the defendant to pay the entire costs, in accordance with Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the defendant to pay the entire costs, in accordance with Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment, the applicant relies on the following three pleas in law.

| 1. | The first plea in law alleges infringement of the following principles: the duty to state reasons, the protection of legitimate expectations and the rights of the defence, the applicant having been informed orally of the contested decision withdrawing with immediate effect the documents giving him access to Commission buildings and that decision being referred to only in the minutes of a meeting between the applicant and the Commission’s human resources and security department. The applicant claims that the contested decision does not refer to the factors which led the Commission to take such a decision and that the legal basis of the decision was communicated to the applicant by an erratum issued after the decision took effect. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law alleges infringement of the following principles: the duty to state reasons, the protection of legitimate expectations and the rights of the defence, the applicant having been informed orally of the contested decision withdrawing with immediate effect the documents giving him access to Commission buildings and that decision being referred to only in the minutes of a meeting between the applicant and the Commission’s human resources and security department. The applicant claims that the contested decision does not refer to the factors which led the Commission to take such a decision and that the legal basis of the decision was communicated to the applicant by an erratum issued after the decision took effect.

| 2. | The second plea in law alleges infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence, in so far as it would appear that the only basis for the contested decision is an interview held by the Belgian police with the applicant in the course of an enquiry of which he is not the object but which concerns a childhood friend with whom he telephoned from time to time. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law alleges infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence, in so far as it would appear that the only basis for the contested decision is an interview held by the Belgian police with the applicant in the course of an enquiry of which he is not the object but which concerns a childhood friend with whom he telephoned from time to time.

| 3. | The third plea in law alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality, the Commission having denied the applicant access to Commission buildings although no charges had been laid against him and he is not the object of the police investigation in question. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea in law alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality, the Commission having denied the applicant access to Commission buildings although no charges had been laid against him and he is not the object of the police investigation in question.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

---