CELEX: 62015TN0110
Language: en
Date: 2015-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-110/15: Action brought on 2 March 2015 — International Management Group v Commission

27.4.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 138/65
            
         Action brought on 2 March 2015 — International Management Group v Commission
   (Case T-110/15)
   (2015/C 138/84)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: International Management Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Burgstaller, Solicitor, and E. Wright, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision THOR/C4/LL/el/(S)(2015)4287 of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 6 February 2015 refusing to grant access to certain documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Commission to pay for the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed in its duty to give reasons when it refused to grant access to the requested documents, relying upon a general presumption of applicability of the protection of the purposes of inspections, investigations and audits.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to explain why the protection of privacy and integrity of individuals prevents partial access to the requested documents.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the applicant’s right to good administration.