CELEX: 62019TN0727
Language: en
Date: 2019-10-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-727/19: Action brought on 29 October 2019 — Basaglia v Commission

23.12.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 432/65
            
         
      Action brought on 29 October 2019 — Basaglia v Commission
      (Case T-727/19)
      (2019/C 432/76)
      Language of the case: Italian
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Giorgio Basaglia (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Balossi, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of the European Commission of 4 September 2019 (C(2019) 6474 final) under Article 4 of the provisions implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
      
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      This action is brought against the Commission’s decision refusing access to certain documents requested by the applicant concerning certain projects that were carried out with part Community funding, in respect of which proceedings are pending before the public prosecutor at the Tribunale di Milano (District Court, Milan, Italy).
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, concerning unilateral restriction of the scope of the original request and insufficient grounds. The applicant claims in this regard that:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              in the present case there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever that could justify restricting the right of access to the documents requested and, therefore, the rights of defence of an individual in criminal proceedings in which he is a defendant in a Member State;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the amount of work required to retrieve copies of the documents requested is not disproportionate to such an interest;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the case-law cited in the contested decision is irrelevant; and
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, concerning the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual. The applicant claims in this regard that:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the decision errs in so far as it considers that there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of the information requested; and
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the requests made by the applicant are proportionate to the interest protected.
                           
                        
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, concerning protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person. The applicant claims in this regard that:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the contested decision does not take into consideration the fact that the documents requested concern very old Community projects which are now complete and that, therefore, the right of protection of commercial interests has necessarily diminished; and
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties.
                           
                        
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, concerning the lack of public interest.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision errs in so far as it does not consider that the reconstruction of the truth in criminal proceedings held in a Member State constitutes a clear public interest.