This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0303
Case T-303/13: Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Miettinen v Council
Case T-303/13: Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Miettinen v Council
Case T-303/13: Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Miettinen v Council
OJ C 215, 27.7.2013, p. 18–19
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 215, 27.7.2013, p. 9–9
(HR)
27.7.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 215/18 |
Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Miettinen v Council
(Case T-303/13)
2013/C 215/26
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Samuli Miettinen (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts, lawyers, and A. Villette, Solicitor)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
Annul the decision of the Council of 21 March 2013 refusing to grant full access to document 15309/12 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), as communicated to the applicant on 25 March 2013 in a letter bearing the reference ‘04/c/01/13’ (the Contested Decision); and |
— |
Order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 4(2) second indent and Article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since the Contested Decision is based on a wrong interpretation and application of such provisions, which relate to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice and to the protection of the ongoing decision-making process respectively, as:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state adequate reasons under Article 296 TFEU, as the Council did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the Contested Decision. |