Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62016TN0435

    Case T-435/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Ms v Commission

    OJ C 70, 6.3.2017, p. 21–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    6.3.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 70/21

    Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Ms v Commission

    (Case T-435/16)

    (2017/C 070/30)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Ms (Castries, France) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    declare the present action admissible and well founded;

    as a result,

    —

    annul the Commission’s decision refusing to communicate personal data concerning the applicant, taken on 16 June 2016;

    —

    order payment of compensation for the non-material harm resulting from the European Commission’s misconduct, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1) and, in particular, of Articles 8, 13 and 20 thereof. The applicant also alleges infringement of the fundamental right of access to personal data and of the right to respect for private life, as well as infringement of the principles of the rights of the defence, equality of arms and the right to good administration. In addition, it argues that the contested decision is vitiated by an unlawful and unfounded statement of reasons. All those illegalities constitute as many instances of misconduct which have caused the applicant real and certain harm.

    Top