This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0562
Case C-562/14 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Kingdom of Sweden against the judgment delivered on 25 September 2014 in Case T-306/12 Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea v European Commission
Case C-562/14 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Kingdom of Sweden against the judgment delivered on 25 September 2014 in Case T-306/12 Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea v European Commission
Case C-562/14 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Kingdom of Sweden against the judgment delivered on 25 September 2014 in Case T-306/12 Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea v European Commission
OJ C 46, 9.2.2015, p. 31–32
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.2.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 46/31 |
Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Kingdom of Sweden against the judgment delivered on 25 September 2014 in Case T-306/12 Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea v European Commission
(Case C-562/14 P)
(2015/C 046/37)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Appellant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Czech Republic and Kingdom of Spain
Form of order sought
|
— |
Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 September 2014 in Case T-306/12, |
|
— |
Declare invalid the decision of the European Commission of 21 June 2012 to deny Mr and Mrs Spirlea access to the requested documents, and |
|
— |
Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the Kingdom of Sweden. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.
By the first ground of appeal, it is argued that the General Court misinterpreted the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (‘the openness regulation’) by taking the view that the Commission, when it relies on the exception for investigations, may base its decision on a general presumption that access should be denied in an EU pilot procedure insofar as it constitutes a step which precedes the possible initiation of Treaty infringement proceedings, and that the Commission did not err in law in interpreting the above provision of the openness regulation as meaning that it could refuse a request for access to the requested documents in an EU pilot matter without examining the documents specifically and individually.
By the second ground of appeal, it is argued that the General Court misinterpreted the third indent of Article 4(2) of the openness regulation by ruling that the Commission’s assessment that there was no overriding public interest within the meaning of the final part of Article 4(2) of the openness regulation was not vitiated by any error.
By the third ground of appeal, it is argued that the General Court misapplied EU law by taking the view that when considering purpose under the openness regulation the lawfulness of the legal acts at issue in an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU should also be assessed in relation to the facts and law obtaining at the time when the legal acts were adopted.