CELEX: C2004/300/90
Language: en
Date: 2004-12-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-380/04: Action brought on 22 September 2004 by Ioannis Terezakis against the Commission of the European Communities

4.12.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 300/46
            
         Action brought on 22 September 2004 by Ioannis Terezakis against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-380/04)
   (2004/C 300/90)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 September 2004 by Ioannis Terezakis, Brussels (Belguim), represented by L. Defalque, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the Commission Decision in the form of a letter dated 12 July 2004 and received by the applicant on 16 July 2004 refusing to the latter access to the main contract, the sub-contracts, the costs of the construction items, the invoices and the final report relating to the construction of the Spata airport;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order that the costs of, and occasioned by these proceedings be borne by the defendant.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Regarding the Commission's refusal to allow him access to the main contract, the applicant invokes first of all a manifest error in law and fact, in that the Commission did not make clear whether the author of the document, Athens International Airport, is a third party other than a Member State or whether it is an authority of the Greek State and consequently whether, paragraph 4 of Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) or paragraph 5 of the same article should apply. The applicant also submits that the Commission provided no evidence that it has considered granting access without consulting the third party. He also considers that by opting for an extensive interpretation of the notion of protection of commercial interests the Commission has violated the principle of the widest possible access to documents, set out in Article 1 (a) of Regulation 1049/2001.
   In connexion with the same document, the applicant also claims that the Commission has violated Article 4 paragraph 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 and Articles 5 paragraphs 3 and 4 of Decision 2001/937 (2) by failing to assess the justification advanced by the third party for refusing to consent to disclosure, and failing to reveal to the applicant elements of that assessment. The applicant also argues that the Commission violated Article 4 paragraph 6 of Regulation 1049/2001 by failing to consider the possibility of granting partial access and that, finally, it has violated its duty to state reasons for its decision.
   By its contested decision the Commission also refused access to the invoices and final report on the completion of the airport on the grounds that they are examined in the framework of an audit commissioned by DG Regional Policy and not yet completed. Concerning this part of the Commission's Decision the applicant submits that the Commission misinterpreted Article 4 paragraph 2 of Regulation 1049/2001 and committed a manifest error of fact in considering that the audit in question falls under this provision. He also invokes a violation of the principle of the widest possible access as well as violation of Annex V to the Commission decision granting assistance from the Cohesion Fund, which provides that Member States concerned shall ensure open and easy access to relevant information requested by the public. He also submits that the Commission failed to consider partial access.
   Concerning the Commission's refusal to grant access to the costs of the construction items the applicant submits that the Commission mistakenly considered that this application did not constitute an application for access to documents and thus violated Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation 1049/2001.
   Finally, the applicant invokes a manifest lack of good faith and a violation of the principle of good administration by the Commission, which failed to indicate, in its contested decision, when it expected to be in possession of the sub-contracts.
   
      (1)  OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43 - 48.
   
      (2)  OJ L 345 of 29.12.2001, p. 94 - 98.