25.5.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/14

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2013 in Case T-392/07 in so far as the form of order sought by the applicant was not granted, or was not granted in full;

—

grant the form of order sought by the applicant in Case T-392/07;

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings;

—

in the alternative, annul also the decision of the President of the General Court of the European Union by which he allocated Case T-392/07 to the Fourth Chamber of the General Court.

1.

Lack of jurisdiction of the formation of the General Court and associated procedural errors and errors of reasoning, as well as the associated infringement of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the second paragraph of Article 50 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Articles 12 and 13(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and other rules of law arising from the so-called reallocation to the Chamber in the present proceedings;

2.

Breaches of procedure and infringements of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) Articles 6 and 13 ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter, and breaches of the principles of effective legal protection, the right to a fair hearing and procedural fairness in conjunction with a failure to state reasons and distortion of facts, attributable to: failure to deal with the case under an expedited procedure; unlawful restrictions on the applicant’s ability to comment and refusal to admit a document concerning correction of the minutes; insufficient judicial review of the documents and dismissal of the applicant’s corresponding application for all documents to be examined in camera; distortion of the facts, insufficient judicial review and breach of the principles of the allocation of the burden of proof and of procedural fairness with regard to the question whether the documentation is complete and to the numbers of confirmatory applications actually made pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001; excessive duration of proceedings and unlawful treatment of the corresponding application for compensation;

3.

Errors of law, lack of precision and failure to state reasons with regard to the formulation and extension of point 1 of the operative part — and the passages of the judgment underpinning that point — together with distortion of facts, inter alia, by the failure to recognise the applicant’s continued interest in bringing proceedings;

4.

Distortion of facts, failure to state reasons and breach of the principles of interpretation with regard to the scope of the applicant’s application for access to the documents in Case T-110/04;

5.

Errors of law, distortion of facts and failure to state reasons in connection with the application and interpretation of Article 4(1)(b) and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in conjunction with the rules on data protection;

6.

Errors of law, distortion of facts and failure to state reasons in connection with the application and interpretation of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001;

7.

Errors of law and failure to state reasons in connection with the rejection of the claim for compensation in the application, in particular breach of the principles of taking evidence and of effective legal protection;

8.

Breach of the principle of effective legal protection in the context of the dismissal of an application by the applicant in paragraph 90 of the judgment in Case T-392/07;

9.

Errors of law and failure to state reasons in connection with the decision on costs.