CELEX: 62018TN0646
Language: en
Date: 2018-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-646/18: Action brought on 26 October 2018 — Bonnafous v Commission

21.1.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 25/42
            
         
      Action brought on 26 October 2018 — Bonnafous v Commission
      (Case T-646/18)
      (2019/C 25/55)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Laurence Bonnafous (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Blot and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  declare that the present action is admissible and well founded;
               
            consequently,
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay all of the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of her action seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 9 October 2018 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to a document (the 2018 Audit Service Report on HR Management in the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, registered under internal registration number ARES(2018)361356 and dated 21 January 2018), the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1049/2001, of Article 15(3) TFEU and of Article 42 of the Charter, on the ground that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations resulting from the public’s right of access to the documents of the institutions and the duty of transparency.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter, that is, the duty to state reasons, in that the analysis set out in the contested decision relies on general statements and abstract reasoning.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, on the ground that the Commission refused to grant access to the requested document by wrongly invoking a general presumption of non-disclosure.