Order — ECLI:EU:T:2017:385
Date: 2017-06-07
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 18 January 2016 — De Masi v Commission (Case T-11/16) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: Fabio De Masi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Prof. A. Fischer-Lescano) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the decision of the European Commission of 9 December 2015 on the application for access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group; annul the decision of the European Commission on the restrictive access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group of 9 November 2015; order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, of which two concern the European Commission decision of 9 December 2015 and two concern the decision of 9 November 2015. Regarding the European Commission decision of 9 December 2015 First plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 1 The applicant submits that the decision of 9 December 2015 infringes the right to an appropriate decision on the confirmatory application decision, laid down in the aforementioned provision. Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 The applicant also submits that the refusal of full access to the documents which the defendant issued concerning the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) set up by the Council in addition infringes its right of scrutiny over those documents, which is guaranteed by the aforementioned provisions. Regarding the European Commission decision of 9 November 2015 Third plea in law: Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 230 TFEU in conjunction with Article 10(2) TEU in conjunction with obligations to provide information The applicant claims in that regard that, as a Member of the European Parliament, he has a subjective right under primary law to full access to documents, in so far as those documents are necessary for the exercise of parliamentary scrutiny. Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the interinstitutional Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission Lastly, the applicant claims that the decision of 9 November 2015 also infringes the aforementioned interinstitutional Framework Agreement, in the application of which the rationale of Article 230 TFEU — widest possible access to documents — must be observed. ____________ 1 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).