Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62019CJ0669

    Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2020.
    BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
    Appeal – Non-contractual liability – Access to documents – Protection of personal data – Allegedly irregular disclosure of such data – Regulations (EC) No 1049/2001 and No 45/2001 – Admissibility of pleas and offers of evidence before the General Court of the European Union – Allocation of costs.
    Case C-669/19 P.

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2020:713

     Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 –
    BP v FRA

    (Case C‑669/19 P) ( 1 )

    (Appeal – Non-contractual liability – Access to documents – Protection of personal data – Allegedly irregular disclosure of such data – Regulations (EC) No 1049/2001 and No 45/2001 – Admissibility of pleas and offers of evidence before the General Court of the European Union – Allocation of costs)

    1. 

    Judicial proceedings – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – Plea based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure – Late submission of the application to introduce a new plea in law – Inadmissibility

    (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1) and (2))

    (see paras 14-16, 20-23)

    2. 

    Appeals – Pleas in law – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility

    (Art. 256 TFUE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2))

    (see paras 26, 27)

    3. 

    Actions for damages – Application – Lack of precision as regards the extent of the damage – Admissibility – Conditions – Allegation by the applicant of facts justifying that omission

    (Art. 340, second para., TFEU)

    (see para. 39)

    4. 

    Judicial proceedings – Production of evidence – Time limit – Evidence lodged out of time – Conditions

    (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 85(1), (2) and (4))

    (see para. 41)

    5. 

    Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Failure to observe the rules of evidence – Question of law amenable to judicial review on appeal

    (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

    (see para. 42)

    6. 

    Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence – Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion

    (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

    (see paras 63, 64)

    7. 

    Appeal – Grounds – Plea directed against the decision of the General Court on costs – Inadmissible where all other pleas are rejected

    (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, second para.)

    (see para. 84)

    Operative part

    The Court:

    1. 

    Dismisses the appeal;

    2. 

    Orders BP to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).


    ( 1 ) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

    Top