This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TA0221
Case T-221/08: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Strack v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an OLAF investigation file — Action for annulment — Implied and express refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Duty to state reasons — Non-contractual liability)
Case T-221/08: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Strack v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an OLAF investigation file — Action for annulment — Implied and express refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Duty to state reasons — Non-contractual liability)
Case T-221/08: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Strack v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an OLAF investigation file — Action for annulment — Implied and express refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Duty to state reasons — Non-contractual liability)
OJ C 211, 13.6.2016, p. 41–42
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
13.6.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 211/41 |
Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Strack v Commission
(Case T-221/08) (1)
((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to an OLAF investigation file - Action for annulment - Implied and express refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Duty to state reasons - Non-contractual liability))
(2016/C 211/51)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn and N. Lödler, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Costa de Oliveira and B. Eggers, and subsequently by B. Eggers and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)
Re:
First, action for annulment of all implied and express decisions of the Commission adopted following the initial applications for access to documents made by Mr Strack on 18 and 19 January 2008 and, secondly, an action for damages.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1. |
Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the lawfulness of the implied decisions refusing access to the documents, taken in connection with the applications for access made by Mr Guido Strack. |
2. |
Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the lawfulness of the express decisions refusing access, in full or in part, to the documents, adopted by the Commission of the European Communities and by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in connection with the confirmatory applications for access to documents made by Mr Strack of 22 February and 21 April 2008, in so far as those documents did not exist or were not available, those documents, or parts of those documents, have been released to the public, or Mr Strack accepts the lawfulness of the decisions refusing access. |
3. |
Annuls OLAF’s decision of 30 April 2010 in so far as:
|
4. |
Annuls OLAF’s decision of 7 July 2010 in so far as:
|
5. |
Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
6. |
Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of Mr Strack; |
7. |
Orders Mr Strack to bear one quarter of his own costs. |