This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0435
Case T-435/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Ms v Commission
Case T-435/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Ms v Commission
Case T-435/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Ms v Commission
IO 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)
- Date of document:
- 22/12/2016
- Date lodged:
- 22/12/2016
- Author:
- Cúirt Ghinearálta
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Fraincis
- Type of procedure:
- Caingean chun cúiteamh a ghnóthú, Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
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.
