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 62015TN0540

    Case T-540/15: Action brought on 18 September 2015 — De Capitani v Parlement

    IO C 398, 30.11.2015, p. 57–58 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    30.11.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 398/57

    Action brought on 18 September 2015 — De Capitani v Parlement

    (Case T-540/15)

    (2015/C 398/72)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Emilio De Capitani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Parliament

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision A(2015)4931 of the European Parliament of 8 July 2015 to refuse full access to documents LIBE-2013-0091-02 and LIBE-2013-0091-03 related to the legislative proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs of the procedure, including the costs if any intervening parties.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging an error in law and a misapplication of Article 4(3) first subparagraph of 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 L 145, p. 43).

    The applicant puts forward that the Parliament committed an error in law and misapplied Article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001 in that:

    —

    access to the requested documents, which are part of the legislative process, does not specifically, effectively and in a non-hypothetical manner undermine the legislative decision-making process;

    —

    the Parliament ignores that, notably after the Lisbon Treaty, legislative preparatory documents are subject to the principle of widest possible access;

    —

    if Article 4(3) would still be applicable to legislative preparatory works after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Parliament has committed an error in law and misapplied the overriding public interest test.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons in accordance with Article 296 TFUE.

    According to the applicant, the Parliament has failed to state reasons as to why it denied access to the requested documents on the basis of Article 4(3), first subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001, by not stating reasons as to (i) why full disclosure of the documents requested would effectively and specifically undermine the decision-making process in question, and (ii) why no overriding public interest exists in this case.
    Top