Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:662
Date: 2018-10-09
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Hungary

Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Pint v Commission (Case T-634/17) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: Anikó Pint (Göd, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the Commission’s decision of 1 June 2017 relating to Ares (2017) 2755260; annul Commission Decision C(2017)5145 final of 17 July 2017; order the Commission to make all of the documents relating to EU Pilot Case 8572/15 (CHAP (2015)00353) accessible to the applicant, irrespective of whether they are already available or are to be made available only in the future; and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of her action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law: First plea in law: The protective purpose of investigations would not be undermined by the disclosure of the contested documents The subject matter of EU Pilot Case 8572/15 is the large-scale and extensive infringements of the right to independent and impartial judicial authorities and the right to a fair trial by the Hungarian courts through the application of legislation relating to the conversion of so-called foreign currency loans into Hungarian currency. That legislation infringes the principle of the separation of powers as it interferes with private legal relationships between citizens. In particular, that legislation forces borrowers to bear the losses resulting from the exchange rate risk and prohibits challenges to the validity of credit agreements from being brought before the courts. Negotiations between the European Commission and the Hungarian Government with a view to bringing the Hungarian legal system into conformity with EU law are inappropriate for achieving this objective since the courts in a State based on the rule of law are independent. The disclosure of the contested documents would not undermine the protective purpose of investigations but would rather support that purpose since only a public discussion can alter the case-law of the Hungarian courts. Second plea in law: There is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the contested documents It is in the public interest to make the documents publicly available as this would make it possible for: the legal culture of the Hungarian courts to change; the Hungarian Government’ understanding of the interpretation of fundamental rights to be discussed publicly throughout the European Union; a public discussion on the Commission’s understanding in relation to the interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European and of the first sentence of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights to be initiated; the internal market to be protected; and the advantages of Hungary’s membership of the European Union to be made clear to citizens. ____________