# C_2017347EN.01002801.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/28

---

Action brought on 20 July 2017 — TL v EDPS

(Case T-452/17)

(2017/C 347/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TL (represented by: T. Léonard and M. Cock, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by rejecting the complaint on the ground that it constituted a request for a review and by failing to respond to the arguments of the claimant, the decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of 16 May 2017 refusing the request for anonymisation of the judgment in [confidential] (1) and of the website pages containing personal data, breaches:






  — | Article 46(a) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1) and Articles 33 and 34(1) of Decision 2013/504/EU of the European Data Protection Supervisor of 17 December 2012 on the adoption of Rules of Procedure (OJ 2013 L 273, p. 41), adopted pursuant to Article 46(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, which invests the EDPS with the function of examining complaints and informing the data subject of the outcome of its examination; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that, by rejecting the complaint on the ground that it constituted a request for a review and by failing to respond to the arguments of the claimant, the decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of 16 May 2017 refusing the request for anonymisation of the judgment in [confidential] (1) and of the website pages containing personal data, breaches:

confidential

1

—

Article 46(a) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1) and Articles 33 and 34(1) of Decision 2013/504/EU of the European Data Protection Supervisor of 17 December 2012 on the adoption of Rules of Procedure (OJ 2013 L 273, p. 41), adopted pursuant to Article 46(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, which invests the EDPS with the function of examining complaints and informing the data subject of the outcome of its examination;

| — | Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which imposes on EU institutions and bodies a general obligation to give reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which imposes on EU institutions and bodies a general obligation to give reasons;

| — | declare that, by finding that the EDPS had no remit to examine the applicant’s complaint, the contested decision infringes Article 46(c) of Regulation No 45/2001, read in the light of Article 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by finding that the EDPS had no remit to examine the applicant’s complaint, the contested decision infringes Article 46(c) of Regulation No 45/2001, read in the light of Article 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

and consequently:

| — | declare the contested decision null and void; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the contested decision null and void;

| — | order the EDPS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EDPS to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the EDPS failed to reply to the complaint submitted to it by the applicant. By rejecting the complaint on the ground that it constituted a request for a review and by failing to reply to the arguments raised by the applicant in support of his request for anonymisation, the contested decision breaches Article 46(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, which invests the EDPS with the function of examining complaints and informing the data subject of the outcome of its examination, and Articles 33 and 34(1) of Decision 2013/504/EU of the European Data Protection Supervisor of 17 December 2012 on the adoption of Rules of Procedure, adopted pursuant to Article 46(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, under which the EDPS is required to deal with complaints and to inform the claimant of the outcome of a complaint and the action taken. According to the applicant, the EDPS did not deal with the complaint in so far as it incorrectly classified it as a request for a review. The contested decision also infringes Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which imposes on EU institutions and bodies a general obligation to give reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the EDPS failed to reply to the complaint submitted to it by the applicant. By rejecting the complaint on the ground that it constituted a request for a review and by failing to reply to the arguments raised by the applicant in support of his request for anonymisation, the contested decision breaches Article 46(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, which invests the EDPS with the function of examining complaints and informing the data subject of the outcome of its examination, and Articles 33 and 34(1) of Decision 2013/504/EU of the European Data Protection Supervisor of 17 December 2012 on the adoption of Rules of Procedure, adopted pursuant to Article 46(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, under which the EDPS is required to deal with complaints and to inform the claimant of the outcome of a complaint and the action taken. According to the applicant, the EDPS did not deal with the complaint in so far as it incorrectly classified it as a request for a review. The contested decision also infringes Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which imposes on EU institutions and bodies a general obligation to give reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 46(c) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, read in the light of Article 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as the EDPS erred in finding that it had no remit to examine the applicant’s complaint. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 46(c) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, read in the light of Article 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as the EDPS erred in finding that it had no remit to examine the applicant’s complaint.

---

(1)  Confidential information omitted.

1

---