# C_2019270EN.01003101.xml

| 12.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/31

---

Action brought on 6 May 2019 — Dragomir v Commission

(Case T-297/19)

(2019/C 270/33)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Daniel Dragomir (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: R. Chiriță, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations with regard to ensuring that Romania fulfils its obligations as set out in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations with regard to ensuring that Romania fulfils its obligations as set out in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data;

| — | find that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations with regard to ensuring that Romania fulfils its obligations as set out in Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations with regard to ensuring that Romania fulfils its obligations as set out in Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA;

| — | find that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations with regard to ensuring that Romania fulfils its obligations as set out in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation); |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations with regard to ensuring that Romania fulfils its obligations as set out in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation);

| — | find that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations with regard to ensuring that Romania observes the rule of law, the independence of courts, and the fundamental rights of persons falling within its jurisdiction; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations with regard to ensuring that Romania observes the rule of law, the independence of courts, and the fundamental rights of persons falling within its jurisdiction;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 2 by way of compensation for the non-material damage caused; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 2 by way of compensation for the non-material damage caused;

| — | order the defendant to address existing omissions in future. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to address existing omissions in future.

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 that the European Commission failed to fulfil its obligations relating to judicial independence as set out in the decision to introduce a Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, the Treaty and the Charter






  — | The European Commission deliberately failed to fulfil its obligations relating to the protection of the rule of law, the independence of the Romanian judiciary which is under attack by the Romanian Intelligence Service, and the applicant’s right to a fair trial; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to fulfil its obligations relating to judicial independence as set out in the decision to introduce a Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, the Treaty and the Charter

—

The European Commission deliberately failed to fulfil its obligations relating to the protection of the rule of law, the independence of the Romanian judiciary which is under attack by the Romanian Intelligence Service, and the applicant’s right to a fair trial;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the protection of personal data






  — | The European Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to verify compliance with the EU directives and regulations concerning the protection of personal data, or fulfilled that obligation in a purely formal way. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the protection of personal data

—

The European Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to verify compliance with the EU directives and regulations concerning the protection of personal data, or fulfilled that obligation in a purely formal way.

---