—

order the production of the document of which disclosure was refused (letter sent on 17 October 2019 by the Italian Authorities in EU Pilot procedure 9456/19/TAXUD);

—

acquire the response, and its related annexes, from the Italian Authorities referred to on pages 2 to 3 of the contested decision;

—

decide on any other measure of inquiry which may be considered useful.

—

annul the decision of the Secretariat-General of the European Commission of 15 July 2022 by which Veritas S.p.A. was refused access to the letter sent on 17 October 2019 by the Italian Authorities in EU Pilot procedure 9456/19/TAXUD and allow the applicant the requested access.

—

The applicant submits in that regard that the contested measure bases the refusal of access on a reconstruction that contradicts, without justification, that of the initial response from the institution regarding the fact that the Italian Authorities had exercised the right provided for in Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

—

The error in law, the failure to state reasons and the contradictory nature of the documents in the procedure vitiate it, preventing verification of the legality of the procedure with respect to the rules applied and the assessments made, depriving the refusal of access of comprehensible justification.

—

The contested decision refuses access in relation to the exception provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, but in the present case the reasoning is merely ostensible.

—

In breach of the law, access to the document requested was refused without explaining how it could specifically and effectively undermine the protection of court proceedings, nor is it proven that the risk of undermining is reasonably foreseeable and not merely hypothetical, it not being specified to which national legal proceedings the decision refers.

—

It is not explained why the sending of the document to Veritas compromises the principle of equality of arms within unspecified judicial proceedings of which Veritas is not even mentioned as a party.

—

The decision lacks adequate verification in respect of the existence of a ‘duly reasoned’ objection of the Member State which opposes the disclosure of the document and in respect of the real existence of the need for protection provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.