Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62019CN0669

Case C-669/19 P: Appeal brought on 9 September 2019 by BP against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-838/16: BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

OJ C 383, 11.11.2019, p. 48–49 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

11.11.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/48


Appeal brought on 9 September 2019 by BP against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-838/16: BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

(Case C-669/19 P)

(2019/C 383/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BP (represented by: E. Lazar, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal; and consequently

grant the appellant adequate compensation for the non-material and material damage caused;

grant the appellant adequate compensation related to the consequences of FRA’s defamatory statements against her and damage to her professional and personal reputation;

order FRA to pay the costs in the first instance and appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1)

First plea in law, alleging error of law and manifest error of assessment of the admissibility of the new plea in law and of the evidences submitted under Article 85 of the Rules of Procedure; violation of the right to be heard; absence of a fair trial; infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection laid down in Article 47 of the EU Charter; limitation of rights; and breach of Article 52 EU Charter.

2)

Second plea in law, alleging error of law and manifest error in the assessment of paragraphs 112, 115 to 117, 126, 140 to 142 of appellant’s action for damages related to alleged breach of article 2(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1), breach of Article 8 ECHR and violation of paragraphs 63-65 of the Bavarian Lager Judgement (2); violation of the duty to state reasons in relation to initial partial disclosure erga omnes and subsequent full disclosure of appellant’s personal data; breach of the legal equilibrium established by the EU legislator between Regulation 1049/2001 and Regulation 45/2001 (3); and violation of the Bavarian Lager Judgement.

3)

Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 134 and 135 of the Rules of Procedure and violation of the duty to state reasons; violation of case law regarding costs; limitation of rights; and breach of Article 52 EU Charter.

4)

Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 66 of the Rules of Procedure; refusal to allow the application for omission of certain sensitive information from the judgement T-838/16; subsequent excessive redaction of judgement; as well as absence of a lawful composition of the 5th Chamber with no possibility to act in extended composition or to vote effectively.


(1)  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).

(2)  Judgment of 29 June 2010, Commission/Bavarian Lager (C-28/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2010:378).

(3)  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).


Top