Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62005TN0444

Case T-444/05: Action brought on 21 December 2005 — Navigazione Libera del Golfo v Commission

OB C 48, 25.2.2006, p. 40–41 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.2.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/40

Action brought on 21 December 2005 — Navigazione Libera del Golfo v Commission

(Case T-444/05)

(2006/C 48/77)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Navigazione Libera del Golfo (NLG) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: Salvatore Ravenna, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 12 October 2005 refusing access to data and information concerning the extra costs arising as a result of PSO (public service obligations) and payments to offset those costs in respect of the services carried out by Caremar SpA on the Naples Beverello-Capri route;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-109/05 Navigazione Libera del Golfo v Commission. (1)

It should, however, be stated that the contested decision in Case T-109/05 is based on Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, whereas the decision at issue in this case is based on Article 4(4) and (5) of that regulation. Accordingly, it was not Caremar that was consulted, as ‘third party author’ of the documents/data to which access was requested, but rather it was the Italian authorities, which did not issue the documents of the case and had no concerns relating to commercial interests, that were consulted.

Further, that consultation was carried out in an artificial manner, given that the Member States have exclusive competence together with a right of veto which is binding on the Commission.

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2005, p. 43.

Top