# C_2012227EN.01002501.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/25 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 28 May 2012 — Ntouvas v ECDC

(Case T-223/12)

2012/C 227/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Ntouvas (Sundbyberg, Sweden) (represented by: E. Mylonas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (Stockholm, Sweden)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 27 March 2012 of the defendant to refuse the applicant access to final reports of audits carried out on ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission; and |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| - | ------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement (obligation to state reasons), thereby infringing Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001( 1 ) and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as:
—
The defendant stated only abstract and general reasons for refusing access to any, and all, reports it holds of audits carried out on ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission; it moreover failed to demonstrate that an overriding public interest in disclosure did not exist; —
According to settled case-law, reasons stated for refusing access to documents must be concrete and individual, as well as specific and describe effectively the eventual interest prevailing over the applicant’s right of access, while demonstrating the non-existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure. | — | The defendant stated only abstract and general reasons for refusing access to any, and all, reports it holds of audits carried out on ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission; it moreover failed to demonstrate that an overriding public interest in disclosure did not exist; | — | According to settled case-law, reasons stated for refusing access to documents must be concrete and individual, as well as specific and describe effectively the eventual interest prevailing over the applicant’s right of access, while demonstrating the non-existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The defendant stated only abstract and general reasons for refusing access to any, and all, reports it holds of audits carried out on ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission; it moreover failed to demonstrate that an overriding public interest in disclosure did not exist; | | | | |
| — | According to settled case-law, reasons stated for refusing access to documents must be concrete and individual, as well as specific and describe effectively the eventual interest prevailing over the applicant’s right of access, while demonstrating the non-existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure. | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties (Art. 15(3) TFEU) and of a rule of law (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) relating to their application, as:
—
By failing to state appropriate and sufficient reasons for refusing to disclose the requested documents, the defendant also breached its obligation under Articles 2(1) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 15(3) TFEU to grant the applicant access to the requested documents within 15 working days from registration of his confirmatory application. | — | By failing to state appropriate and sufficient reasons for refusing to disclose the requested documents, the defendant also breached its obligation under Articles 2(1) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 15(3) TFEU to grant the applicant access to the requested documents within 15 working days from registration of his confirmatory application. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | By failing to state appropriate and sufficient reasons for refusing to disclose the requested documents, the defendant also breached its obligation under Articles 2(1) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 15(3) TFEU to grant the applicant access to the requested documents within 15 working days from registration of his confirmatory application. | | |

---

( 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)

---