CELEX: 62011TA0669
Language: en
Date: 2014-09-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-669/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 –Spirlea v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Document emanating from Germany in the context of an EU Pilot procedure — Article 4(4) and (5) — Third indent of Article 4(2) — Refusal of access — Breach of essential procedural requirements — Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination — Partial access — Overriding public interest)

10.11.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 395/34
            
         
      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 –Spirlea v Commission
      (Case T-669/11) (1)
      
      ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Document emanating from Germany in the context of an EU Pilot procedure - Article 4(4) and (5) - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Refusal of access - Breach of essential procedural requirements - Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination - Partial access - Overriding public interest))
      (2014/C 395/39)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore, Italy) (represented by: initially, V. Foerster and T. Pahl, and, subsequently, V. Foerster and E. George, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and H. Kraemer, acting as Agents)
      
         Re:
      
      Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 November 2011 refusing to allow the applicants access to the observations submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany to the Commission on 7 July 2011 in the context of EU Pilot procedure No 2070/11/SNCO.
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      The Court:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Dismisses the action;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.