CELEX: 62008TA0474
Language: en
Date: 2010-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-474/08: Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2010 — Umbach v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a contract concluded under the TACIS programme — Request for access concerning a dispute between the applicant and the Commission before a Belgian civil court — Partial refusal of access — Request for access based on the principles deriving from the EU Treaty — Overriding public interest)

4.12.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 328/29
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2010 — Umbach v Commission
   (Case T-474/08) (1)
   
   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a contract concluded under the TACIS programme - Request for access concerning a dispute between the applicant and the Commission before a Belgian civil court - Partial refusal of access - Request for access based on the principles deriving from the EU Treaty - Overriding public interest)
   2010/C 328/49
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Dieter C. Umbach (Bangkok, Thailand) (represented by: M. Stephani, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)
   
      Re:
   
   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 September 2008 refusing the applicant access to certain data in documents concerning a contract headed ‘TACIS Service Contract No 98.0414’ relating to assistance in the drafting of an administrative code for the Russian Federation
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               orders Mr Dieter C. Umbach to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.