# C_2013101EN.01000903.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/9

---

Appeal brought on 18 January 2013 by Gabi Thesing, Bloomberg Finance LP against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2012 in Case T-590/10: Gabi Thesing, Bloomberg Finance LP v European Central Bank

(Case C-28/13 P)

2013/C 101/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Gabi Thesing, Bloomberg Finance LP (represented by: M Stephens, R Lands, Solicitors)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | quash the decision of the General Court dated 29 November 2012 in case number T-590/10. It should do so on the basis that the General Court erred in law in reaching that decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

quash the decision of the General Court dated 29 November 2012 in case number T-590/10. It should do so on the basis that the General Court erred in law in reaching that decision.

| — | annul the decision of the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) communicated by letters dated 17 September 2010 and 21 October 2010, refusing to grant access to the documents requested by the Appellants pursuant to the Decision of the ECB of 4 March 2004 (ECB/2004/3) on public access to ECB documents (1). The Court should annul that decision on the basis that:






  i) | the ECB made a manifest error of assessment and/or abused its powers in reaching that decision; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) communicated by letters dated 17 September 2010 and 21 October 2010, refusing to grant access to the documents requested by the Appellants pursuant to the Decision of the ECB of 4 March 2004 (ECB/2004/3) on public access to ECB documents (1). The Court should annul that decision on the basis that:

1

i)

the ECB made a manifest error of assessment and/or abused its powers in reaching that decision; and

| ii) | the only lawful course was for the ECB to permit access to those documents, as requested. |
| --- | --- |

ii)

the only lawful course was for the ECB to permit access to those documents, as requested.

| — | quash the decision of the General Court insofar as it required the Appellants to pay the ECB's costs. It should do so on the basis that the General Court erred in law in reaching that decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

quash the decision of the General Court insofar as it required the Appellants to pay the ECB's costs. It should do so on the basis that the General Court erred in law in reaching that decision.

| — | alternatively, remit the case to the General Court for determination in accordance with the Court's ruling on the points of law raised in this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, remit the case to the General Court for determination in accordance with the Court's ruling on the points of law raised in this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law:-

| — | in misconstruing Article 4.1 (a) of the decision of the European Central Bank, dated 4 March 2004 (ECB/2004/3), which provides for an exception to the general right of access conferred by Article 2 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in misconstruing Article 4.1 (a) of the decision of the European Central Bank, dated 4 March 2004 (ECB/2004/3), which provides for an exception to the general right of access conferred by Article 2 of that decision;

| — | in holding that the ECB was entitled to conclude that disclosure of the documents requested by the Appellants would have undermined the economic policy of the EU and Greece; |
| --- | --- |

—

in holding that the ECB was entitled to conclude that disclosure of the documents requested by the Appellants would have undermined the economic policy of the EU and Greece;

| — | in misconstruing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

in misconstruing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

| — | in failing to consider the Appellants’ contentions in relation to Article 4.2 and 4.3 of the decision of the ECB; |
| --- | --- |

—

in failing to consider the Appellants’ contentions in relation to Article 4.2 and 4.3 of the decision of the ECB;

| — | the Appellants also submit that the General Court erred in relation to costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Appellants also submit that the General Court erred in relation to costs.

---

(1)  OJ L 80, p. 42

1

---