Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:766
Date: 2015-10-07
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - decision unnecessary
Origin: France

Action brought on 12 September 2014 — Jurašinović v Council (Case T-658/14) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: O. Pfligersdorffer, lawyer) Defendant: Council of the European Union Form of order so court proceedings and by redacting the reque sted documents on that ground;order the Council to pay the applicant EUR 5 000 exclusive of tax, that is to say EUR 6 000 in total including all taxes, to cover procedural costs, with interest at the European Central Bank rate as at the date of registration of the application;order th e Council to pay the costs.Pleas in law and main argumentsIn support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in relation to the exception concerning the protection of c ourt proceedings laid down in the se cond indent of Article 4(2) of R egulation No 1049/2001, in so far as the Court had already held, in Jurašinović v Council (T-63/10, EU:T:2012:516) — in implementation of which the contested decision was adopted — that although that exception was applicable, it could not operate in the present case. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in relation to the exception concerning the protection of the public interest as regards international relations laid down in the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that the measure or the documents at issue concerned information issued by the European Union and not from the United Nations system, with the result that the flow of information from that organisation would not be affected. Thi n three pleas in law.First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in relation to the exception concerning the protection of court proceedings laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as the Court had already he