# C_2005106EN.01001401.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/14

---

Appeal brought on 9 February 2005 by Maurizio Turco against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-84/03 between Maurizio Turco, supported by Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of Sweden and Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-52/05 P)

(2005/C 106/28)

Language of procedure: English

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-84/03 (1) between Maurizio Turco, supported by Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of Sweden and Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Commission of the European Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2005 by Maurizio Turco, residing in Pulsano (Italy), represented by O. W. Brouwer and C. E. Schillemanns, lawyers,

1

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2004 by which it:






  a) | dismissed the action brought by the Appellant in so far as it concerns the refusal of access to Document No 9077/02, containing an opinion of the Council legal service concerning a proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of Appellants for asylum in Member States; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2004 by which it:

a)

dismissed the action brought by the Appellant in so far as it concerns the refusal of access to Document No 9077/02, containing an opinion of the Council legal service concerning a proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of Appellants for asylum in Member States;

| b) | ordered the Appellant and the Council each to bear half of the costs of the proceedings |
| --- | --- |

b)

ordered the Appellant and the Council each to bear half of the costs of the proceedings

| — | when necessary, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

when necessary, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by eventual intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by eventual intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First Instance contains errors of law in its interpretation and application of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (the Regulation).

2

(the Regulation)

The grounds of appeal and legal arguments on which the Appellant relies are that the Court of First Instance in the present case:

| (i) | did not give the correct interpretation and application of the term ‘legal advice’ in Article 4(2) of the Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

did not give the correct interpretation and application of the term ‘legal advice’ in Article 4(2) of the Regulation;

| (ii) | wrongly qualified the legal opinion as ‘legal advice’ within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Regulation and contravened the scope and content of Articles 4(2) and 4(3) and the inherent set up and structure of the Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

wrongly qualified the legal opinion as ‘legal advice’ within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Regulation and contravened the scope and content of Articles 4(2) and 4(3) and the inherent set up and structure of the Regulation;

| (iii) | wrongly interpreted and applied (the Community case-law establishing) the principle that widest possible access should be granted to documents held by the Community institutions and that derogations from this principle should be construed as restrictively as possible; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

wrongly interpreted and applied (the Community case-law establishing) the principle that widest possible access should be granted to documents held by the Community institutions and that derogations from this principle should be construed as restrictively as possible;

| (iv) | misinterpreted and misapplied (the Community case-law establishing) the principle that requests for access to documents should be assessed on a case-by-case basis; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

misinterpreted and misapplied (the Community case-law establishing) the principle that requests for access to documents should be assessed on a case-by-case basis;

| (v) | misinterpreted and misapplied the concept of ‘overriding public interests’ and committed an error in law by placing the burden of proof in this respect on the Appellant; |
| --- | --- |

(v)

misinterpreted and misapplied the concept of ‘overriding public interests’ and committed an error in law by placing the burden of proof in this respect on the Appellant;

| (vi) | violated the Community law principle that the Community's legal order is based on the rule of law; and |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

violated the Community law principle that the Community's legal order is based on the rule of law; and

| (vii) | did not provide sufficient reasoning and omitted to respond to specific arguments put forward by the Appellant. |
| --- | --- |

(vii)

did not provide sufficient reasoning and omitted to respond to specific arguments put forward by the Appellant.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10/05/2003, p. 38.

1

(2)  OJ L 145, 31/05/2001, p. 43.

2

---