CELEX: C2003/200/45
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-187/03: Action brought on 28 May 2003 by Isabella Scippacercola against the Commission of the European Communities

23.8.2003             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 200/25
Action brought on 28 May 2003 by Isabella Scippacercola                    hence Article 4(4) of Regulation 1049/2001 should have been
   against the Commission of the European Communities                      applied.
                         (Case T-187/03)                                   The applicant also claims in this respect that the Commission
                                                                           infringed Article 1(a) of Regulation 1049/2001 and the prin-
                                                                           ciple of the widest possible access to documents held by the
                         (2003/C 200/45)                                   Commission.
                   (Language of the case: English)                         Secondly, the applicant invokes a violation of Article 4(5) of
                                                                           Regulation 1049/2001 and Article 5(4) of Decision 2001/937
                                                                           (sic) to the extent that the Commission failed to assess the
                                                                           justification given by Greece and, in doing so, gave a de facto
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                    power of veto to the Member State concerned.
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 May 2003 by Isabella                            The applicant furthermore invokes a violation of the obligation
Scippacercola,      Brussels,     Belgium,       represented      by       to state reasons and, finally, a violation of Article 4(6) of
Dr K. Adamantopoulos and Mr D. Papakrivopoulos, lawyers,                   Regulation 1049/2001 to the extent that the Commission
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                 have allegedly failed to examine whether partial access should
                                                                           have been granted.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
—     annul the Commission decision in the form of a letter                    the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
      dated 19 March 2003 and notified to the applicant by fax                 Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43).
                                                                           (2) 2001/937/EC, ECSC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 5 December
      of 31 March 2003, refusing to the latter access to the
                                                                               2001 amending its rules of procedure (notified under document
      cost-benefit study relating to the construction of the                   number C(2001) 3714) (OJ L 345, p. 94).
      Spata Airport;
—     order that the costs of, and occasioned by, these proceed-
      ings be borne by the respondent.
                                                                           Action brought on 4 June 2003 by Gustav Thommes
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                     (Case T-195/03)
The applicant has requested from the Commission, amongst
others, a copy of the cost-benefit analysis concerning the
creation of the Spata Airport. According to the applicant, this                                      (2003/C 200/46)
document should have accompanied the application by Greece
for assistance from the Cohesion Fund. The request for access
to documents was refused by the Commission. With the                                          (Language of the case: German)
refusal however, the Commission transmitted part of the
application for assistance from the Cohesion Fund, which
contained a short description of the main topics of the cost-              An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
benefit analysis. The confirmatory application by the applicant            nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
was also rejected.                                                         European Communities on 4 June 2003 by Gustav Thommes,
                                                                           residing in Wezembeek-Oppem in Brussels (Belgium), repre-
In support of its application, the applicant submits in the first          sented by M. Thewes, lawyer, with an address for service in
place that the Commission made a manifest error in law and a               Luxembourg.
manifest error in the appreciation of the facts. According to
the applicant, the Commission erred in its assumption that the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
document for which access was requested originated from a
Member State. According to the applicant, Greece was not the               —     annul the defendant's decisions of 17 July 2002, 1 August
original creator of the document, but merely forwarded the                       2002 and 3 March 2003;
document as part of its application for assistance from the
Cohesion Fund.
                                                                           —     declare void the recovery of the second half of the
                                                                                 installation allowance for the resettlement of his family;
The applicant claims that, as a consequence, the Commission
wrongly relied on and misinterpreted Article 4(5) of Regulation            —     grant the applicant the installation allowance in respect of
1049/2001 (1) regarding public access to European Parliament,                    his transfer to Brussels;
Council and Commission documents and Article 5(4) of Deci-
sion 2001/937 (2) (sic). The applicant claims that the document            —     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
should have been considered as a third party document and                        ings.