Case T-422/18: Action brought on 6 July 2018 — RATP v Commission
Date: 2018-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, data protection, disclosure of information, personal data








C_2018364EN.01001402.xml










8.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/14






Action brought on 6 July 2018 — RATP v Commission
(Case T-422/18)
(2018/C 364/15)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery, P. Delelis and C. Lavin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission Decision of 5 March 2018 granting access to documents included within the request for access to documents registered under reference GestDem 2017/7530 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;










—


in any event, order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.





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 that the Commission infringes Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), and Article 5(3)(b) and Article 5(6) of the section relating to provisions implementing Regulation No 1049/2001 of the Commission’s Code of Conduct annexed to the latter’s Rules of Procedures [C(2000) 3614 (JO 2000 L 308, p. 26)], in so far as the Commission could not communicate the documents at issue without informing the applicant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes the principle of sound administration set out in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of its duty of due diligence as set out in the relevant case-law, and therefore, of the objective of Regulation No 1049/2001, according to Article 1(c) of which that regulation seeks to ‘promote good administrative practises on access to documents.’










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes the first, second and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as it refused to apply the exceptions which were nevertheless invoked by the applicant. This plea is divided into three parts:






—


first part, alleging that the Commission infringes the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as it deliberately refused to apply the general presumption of confidentiality applicable to documents;










—


second part, alleging that the Commission infringes the second indent of Article 4(20 of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as it refused to take into consideration the interference with judicial procedures which the communication of the documents effected;










—


third part, alleging that the Commission infringes the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 339 TFEU, in so far as it failed to take into consideration the applicant’s commercial, financial and strategic interests.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes Article 4(1)(b) and Article 8 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), in so far as it refused to conceal the identity of the individual who was the author of the documents at issue.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes the requirement to state reasons imposed on it in accordance with Article 296 TFEU, in so far as it failed to inform the applicant, whether before or after the dispatch of the documents, of the reasons which could have justified its wish to dispatch those documents.