15.6.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/30

—

Annul Eurojust’s confirmatory decision of 2 February 2013;

—

direct Eurojust to adopt a new decision on the basis of the confirmatory application of 31 December 2012, taking account of the judgment of the General Court; and

—

order Eurojust to pay the costs incurred in connection with consideration of the present application and those incurred in connection with the confirmatory application.

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure by Eurojust to examine all the legal grounds on which the applicants rely

The application for information of 4 October 2012 and the confirmatory application for information of 31 December 2013 are based on different grounds, including Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 8(2), 41(2) and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389). Nevertheless the contested decision of Eurojust was based exclusively on Eurojust’s rules regarding access to documents. Eurojust erroneously disregarded the other grounds on which the applicants rely.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of care in the taking of the confirmatory decision and an inadequate statement of reasons

Eurojust refuses to provide the information requested, referring to the exceptions laid down in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of its rules regarding access to documents. However, Eurojust does not explain in the contested decision, or does not sufficiently explain, why and to what extent those exceptions apply in the present case.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misapplication of the ‘national investigation’ and ‘fight against serious crime’ exceptions provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of its rules regarding access to documents

The applicants have a reasonable and justified suspicion that (a) prosecution authority/ies has/have acted unlawfully in the criminal (preliminary) investigation. With a view to further substantiating that suspicion they, inter alia, submitted an application for information to Eurojust. Eurojust states that the information requested cannot be provided because a judicial preliminary investigation is still underway. According to the applicants, Eurojust is relying on those exceptions erroneously and without adequate reasons.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging misapplication of the ‘privacy and integrity of the individuals’ exception provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Eurojust’s rules regarding access to documents

Eurojust has neither asserted nor established that the documents requested contain third parties’ personal data. Furthermore, the mere fact that a document contains personal data does not necessarily mean that the privacy or integrity of an individual is affected. Any statements that may have been made by officials that were not made in a personal capacity cannot justify the withholding of the information requested.

In so far as the integrity and privacy of individuals are at issue, Eurojust ought to have considered whether and how the documents requested could have been supplied — if necessary in anonymised form or in part only. Eurojust also failed, erroneously, to do so.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging misapplication of the ‘fulfilment of the applicable rules on professional secrecy’ exception provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Eurojust’s rules regarding access to documents

Reliance on that exception is not justified. The applicants are unable to establish which confidentiality rules are supposed to be applicable here, and they doubt that confidentiality rules apply that would preclude provision of the documents requested.