# C_2017249EN.01003101.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/31

---

Action brought on 1 June 2017 — Campbell v Commission

(Case T-312/17)

(2017/C 249/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Liam Campbell (Dundalk, Ireland) (represented by: J. MacGuill, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 7 April 2017 refusing the applicant access to documents concerning infringement proceedings initiated against Lithuania for alleged non-implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 7 April 2017 refusing the applicant access to documents concerning infringement proceedings initiated against Lithuania for alleged non-implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU. (1)

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the failure by the defendant to conduct a concrete assessment of the request for access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001, in breach of relevant case-law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the failure by the defendant to conduct a concrete assessment of the request for access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001, in breach of relevant case-law.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the defendant’s unlawful reliance on certain general presumptions relating to the disclosure of documents, in breach of the principles identified in the relevant case-law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the defendant’s unlawful reliance on certain general presumptions relating to the disclosure of documents, in breach of the principles identified in the relevant case-law.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to process a specific and effective examination of the risk for each document, likewise in breach of relevant case-law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to process a specific and effective examination of the risk for each document, likewise in breach of relevant case-law.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to carry out a specific and effective examination of potential partial access in breach of the case-law. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to carry out a specific and effective examination of potential partial access in breach of the case-law.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant regarding the existence of an overriding public interest, in breach of the principles in the case-law. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant regarding the existence of an overriding public interest, in breach of the principles in the case-law.

---

(1)  Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ 2010, L 280, p. 1).

---