Action brought on 12 July 2017 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-433/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Franklin Dehousse (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action both admissible and well founded;

and, consequently,

annul the decision of 18 May 2017 whereby the defendant rejected the confirmatory application for access to documents submitted by the applicant on 12 April 2017, and the decision of 22 May 2017 whereby the defendant partially rejected the confirmatory application for access to documents submitted by the applicant on 16 March 2017;

acknowledge the defendant’s liability under Article 340 TFEU;

order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, assessed ex aequo et bono at ten thousand (10 000) euros, and, in the alternative, one symbolic euro;

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 three pleas in law in relation to his claim for annulment and a single plea in law in relation to his claim for damages.

1.    First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 11 October 2016 concerning public access to documents held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the exercise of its administrative functions (OJ 2016 C 445, p. 3), Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in relation to public access to documents of the institutions and the duty of transparency. In particular, the applicant submits that the contested decisions must be annulled in so far as they refuse to provide certain documents, and provide others either in an incomplete manner or with numerous redactions.

2.    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter, in that the contested decisions are vitiated by a failure to provide a statement of reasons or by an insufficient statement of reasons.

3.    Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

Concerning the non-contractual liability of the European Union, the applicant submits that the defendant institution engaged in misconduct giving rise to liability. That misconduct caused the applicant serious non-material damage in respect of which he is seeking compensation.

____________