Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62019TN0727

    Case T-727/19: Action brought on 29 October 2019 — Basaglia v Commission

    IO C 432, 23.12.2019, p. 65–66 (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:
    29/10/2019
    Date lodged:
    29/10/2019
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Iodáilis
    Type of procedure:
    Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú - neamh-inghlactha
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    23.12.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 432/65

    Action brought on 29 October 2019 — Basaglia v Commission

    (Case T-727/19)

    (2019/C 432/76)

    Language of the case: Italian

    Parties

    Applicant: Giorgio Basaglia (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Balossi, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of the European Commission of 4 September 2019 (C(2019) 6474 final) under Article 4 of the provisions implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    This action is brought against the Commission’s decision refusing access to certain documents requested by the applicant concerning certain projects that were carried out with part Community funding, in respect of which proceedings are pending before the public prosecutor at the Tribunale di Milano (District Court, Milan, Italy).

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, concerning unilateral restriction of the scope of the original request and insufficient grounds. The applicant claims in this regard that:

    —

    in the present case there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever that could justify restricting the right of access to the documents requested and, therefore, the rights of defence of an individual in criminal proceedings in which he is a defendant in a Member State;

    —

    the amount of work required to retrieve copies of the documents requested is not disproportionate to such an interest;

    —

    the case-law cited in the contested decision is irrelevant; and

    —

    the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties.

    2.

    Second plea in law, concerning the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual. The applicant claims in this regard that:

    —

    the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties;

    —

    the decision errs in so far as it considers that there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of the information requested; and

    —

    the requests made by the applicant are proportionate to the interest protected.

    3.

    Third plea in law, concerning protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person. The applicant claims in this regard that:

    —

    the contested decision does not take into consideration the fact that the documents requested concern very old Community projects which are now complete and that, therefore, the right of protection of commercial interests has necessarily diminished; and

    —

    the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, concerning the lack of public interest.

    —

    The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision errs in so far as it does not consider that the reconstruction of the truth in criminal proceedings held in a Member State constitutes a clear public interest.
    Top