This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CJ0669
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2020.
BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
Appeal – Non-contractual liability – Access to documents – Protection of personal data – Allegedly irregular disclosure of such data – Regulations (EC) No 1049/2001 and No 45/2001 – Admissibility of pleas and offers of evidence before the General Court of the European Union – Allocation of costs.
Case C-669/19 P.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2020.
BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
Appeal – Non-contractual liability – Access to documents – Protection of personal data – Allegedly irregular disclosure of such data – Regulations (EC) No 1049/2001 and No 45/2001 – Admissibility of pleas and offers of evidence before the General Court of the European Union – Allocation of costs.
Case C-669/19 P.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2020:713
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 –
BP v FRA
(Case C‑669/19 P) ( 1 )
(Appeal – Non-contractual liability – Access to documents – Protection of personal data – Allegedly irregular disclosure of such data – Regulations (EC) No 1049/2001 and No 45/2001 – Admissibility of pleas and offers of evidence before the General Court of the European Union – Allocation of costs)
1. |
Judicial proceedings – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – Plea based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure – Late submission of the application to introduce a new plea in law – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1) and (2)) (see paras 14-16, 20-23) |
2. |
Appeals – Pleas in law – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFUE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2)) (see paras 26, 27) |
3. |
Actions for damages – Application – Lack of precision as regards the extent of the damage – Admissibility – Conditions – Allegation by the applicant of facts justifying that omission (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 39) |
4. |
Judicial proceedings – Production of evidence – Time limit – Evidence lodged out of time – Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 85(1), (2) and (4)) (see para. 41) |
5. |
Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Failure to observe the rules of evidence – Question of law amenable to judicial review on appeal (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 42) |
6. |
Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence – Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 63, 64) |
7. |
Appeal – Grounds – Plea directed against the decision of the General Court on costs – Inadmissible where all other pleas are rejected (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, second para.) (see para. 84) |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Dismisses the appeal; |
2. |
Orders BP to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). |
( 1 ) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.