# C_2019035EN.01002701.xml

| 28.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/27

---

Action brought on 23 November 2018 — Montanari v EEAS

(Case T-692/18)

(2019/C 35/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marco Montanari (Reggio Emilia, Italy) (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare this action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare this action admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the contested decision refusing the applicant access wholly or in part to the document referred to [below]; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision refusing the applicant access wholly or in part to the document referred to [below]; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the full costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the full costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action has been brought against the decision of 24 October 2018 of the European External Action Service refusing to grant the applicant access to the report of 29 July 2017 drawn up following the mediation mission carried out by the Head of the ‘Mission Support’ Division.

In support of the action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1049/2001, Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. More specifically, the applicant submits that public access to the documents of the institutions is, in principle, the legal rule and the possibility of refusal is the exception. However, the exceptions provided for by Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 and relied on by the European External Action Service cannot justify refusal of access to the documents, on the ground that the conditions set out in that article are not met. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1049/2001, Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. More specifically, the applicant submits that public access to the documents of the institutions is, in principle, the legal rule and the possibility of refusal is the exception. However, the exceptions provided for by Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 and relied on by the European External Action Service cannot justify refusal of access to the documents, on the ground that the conditions set out in that article are not met.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the contested decisions are vitiated by a failure to state reasons or by an inadequate statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the contested decisions are vitiated by a failure to state reasons or by an inadequate statement of reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

---